Talk:Line of Duty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible new subsection[edit]

Dear all editors of Line of Duty & User:Gareth Griffith-Jones,

I have a new editorial suggestion, a new section to go under 'Series Two (2014)'. As seen on "Episode 6" in Series Two, during the last few minutes, we saw the characters outcomes from the series. I have wrote them out in a suitable format for this page, but worded differently from the annotations on the episode.

I am just wondering, would you guys have any problem with me updating the article with this? Is it acceptable for this article?

You can see the Sandbox edit of it here (at the very bottom).

Thank you, Limbsaw 19:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Good evening Limbsaw Great username I have no problem with your proposal ... go for it! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 20:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do it now then. Feel free to edit as much as you like, still getting used to what context is appropriate for Wikipedia. Thanks, Limbsaw 20:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limbsaw (talk • contribs)
I have just done so. Please compare carefully with your admirable effort to see what I have done. Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 08:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Series 3&4[edit]

Dear all editors,

From reading many different press releases from reliable news and BBC Media Centre articles, it is clear of this information:

  • Both series 3&4 will consists of six one-hour long episodes
  • Both series will also have new unique police corruption story lines ("explosive cases for AC-12")
  • It was commissioned by Adam Barker, Acting Controller of BBC Two & Ben Stephenson, Controller of BBC Drama Commissioning
  • Some new (undisclosed) "guest stars as police officers investigated for corruption"
  • A few "surprise reappearances" (again undisclosed)
  • Also some "twists and turns from the loose ends of series two"
  • The executive producers are Jed Mercurio and Simon Heath for World Productions, and Stephen Wright for BBC Northern Ireland


I don't really know if we could or should use this information, as of yet? Especially because people were editing the article in the style of a relaxed TV magazine. We could definitely do with the regular editors to keep an eye out on all reliable sources for Line of Duty Series 3&4 (Mainly BBC Media Centre - certainly the best source for wikipedia BBC TV articles. I very much doubt the BBC will realise anything to do with series 4, but they should be realising stuff for series 3 soon enough? (Filming, or at least writing should be underway soon, the BBC have said themselves they love the show!) But if anyone does manage to find anything, please reply with the information here, then we could maybe form a Series 3 sub-section.

I am also looking back at some old BBC Media Centre releases; hopefully I can improve information about Series 1.

Thanks, Limbsaw 15:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limbsaw (talk • contribs)

No. We wait for the event. We are not a publicist, we are a journalist. We state the facts; nothing more. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 19:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mays[edit]

Mays is credited as the lead actor in both episodes one and two, and appears in both episodes one and two (in episode two for his death scene), yet there is an editor who insists the prose overview should state he only appeared in "episode one". I'm starting a discussion here because a) it's incredibly annoying and b) it's just plain incorrect. I will be correcting this every single time it's changed back to "episode one". --Unframboise (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is "starred", not "appeared" that offends. Get it right before complaining! — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  12:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's credited in initial position - that of the lead actor, that held by Keeley Hawes and Lennie James. He's also featured prominently on DVD artwork. I'll continue to complain. --Unframboise (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, as your stubborn vandalism seems to continue, I will concede, and have altered the prose to state he "appeared in episodes one and two". This seems like a reasonable compromise. --Unframboise (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome your cessation of intransigence. Your use of the words "stubborn vandalism" in this context is miguided and should be redacted. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  09:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox issues[edit]

So, I return to Wikipedia after a while away and see one of the issues that led to me to leave in the first place front and centre on my Watchlist. An anonymous user, who has certainly edited before, in a an edit war with another editor, with words like imbecilic and puerile. And my heart sank. So, before I disappear again because nothing has changed, including name calling, here is my twopenceworth.

First of all, has no one noticed that the article itself lists who is the main cast and supporting cast? Just a thought.

Second, I would find it hard to disagree that if the show had lasted one series then Lennie James would be on the top of the starring list. Indeed, if it had lasted two, then he probably still would. However, as the "stars", for want of a better word, are Compston, McClure and Dunbar, how do you now fit Lennie James in? His character is certainly not, as Drmargi believes, a supporting character. He led the show for the first series and the repercussions of his storyline were felt into the fourth. And neither could you say that Thandie Newton played a supporting character as she led the fourth series. (I'll give you Daniel Mays.) At the same time, if Neil Morrissey is down as a lead actor, having appeared in three series, why is Paul Higgins being taken out, when he has appeared in two series but appeared in more episodes? And it's from this that I can see the position of the anonymous user as well as the long time editor. So, in the spirit of compromise, and to avoid the edit warring as has been going on, I propose just sticking a See Cast as no one is going to agree with who is and who isn't main and supporting (personally I think that Neil Morrissey is a supporting character).

I'll stick that in. And then toodle off to happy wiki retirement again. As you were. Quentin X (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had fixed what you noted while waiting for action on a request for semi-protection. When the admin semi'd the article, he rolled it back to what he mistakenly thought was the start of the content dispute, reverting a number of good edits in the process including my edit aligning the infobox to the article main cast list. I plan to restore the correct main cast list when I can use my desktop computer. It's too had to do on my iPad, which I'm using now. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Corrections made. Billing, nor our opinions, make the determination of who is main cast. Compston, Dunbar and McClure are the core main cast, along with Parkinson and the focal "baddie" each season. That's what the article body lists, and the infobox should. It's been revised and fiddled with so many times recently that it's a wonder it's in as good shape as it is. BTW, show me where I said Lennie James was a supporting character. I added him to the infobox when I initially corrected it; that was the edit the admin reverted, along with a fair few useful copyedits done by another editor, in a well-meaning but inaccurate attempt to restore the article to the beginning of the edit conflict. Please avoid attributing beliefs to other editors without some concrete evidence. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of episodes[edit]

I believe a list of episodes pages is very necessary now. The page is big enough and the huge episode list in the middle of it is getting rather excessive as it keeps growing. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Long overdue. Get it started! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 05:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. What is the point of severing the cast from the plot? The problem, if there is one, is the length of the "short summaries" − Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - Assume you mean a List of episodes article. Something like List of Line of Duty episodes akin to many series article collections (e.g. List of Downton Abbey episodes. I wouldn't say it's overdue - I would contend it is now due. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, a ‘list of episodes’ article did exist for this programme, but it was merged here snd deleted. I agree it should be restored because there’s too much content for the episodes and it takes up the bulk of the page. —137.221.149.71 (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Separate comment, moved here on 16 April 2019 from #Split?(below) to "Keep discussion in one section". Deleted again on 19 April. Explanation added for transparency. Swanny18 (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Comment here warrants a spit off for the episode detail into a List of Line of Duty episodes article. I will do this later today unless more come in on the opposing opinion. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having now moved the episode detail into a 'list of ...' articles the main page should develop the description of series' overview and each series descriptions independent of that included in the episode article. Here should provide true synopsis (i.e. short) of each series - whereas the episode article the header paragraphs might be better used to give a taster of each series premise. Give my take on it. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention in the Line of Duty main article that the List of Line of Duty episodes article exists. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just below Series overview
Main article: List of Line of Duty episodes
Just so - do you think it should be elsewhere too? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning Kevin. Well, as I did not spot it yesterday evening, yes it probably should.
Could it be also right at the top (next to the Chinese films) do you think? Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like so? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Thank you for doing that and for your speedy response. Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Accolades[edit]

Time for this page now? The page seems to be clogging up space in the article and it looks like it deserves it's own spaceSaxonvsjones (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currently disagree - the urgent need is to resolve the episode version of this debate and get that sorted. Also the accolades are generally an issue for the whole story arc and would be a major focus for establishing notability etc. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cast List[edit]

Seeming the series has had a format shift for season 5 (the series no longer follows AC-12 main corrupt police officer suspects for season 5 and focuses on an OCG), should we perhaps change how the cast list is formatted to reflect this and include Season 5 cast members such as Stephen Graham in this list. Perhaps we should use the wiki box format, here is how I think it could be used.

Actor Character Count Seasons
1 2 3 4 5
Martin Compston DS Steve Arnott 29 Main
Vicky McClure DC/DS/DI Kate Fleming 29 Main
Adrian Dunbar DCI Ted Hastings 29 Main
Craig Parkinson DS/DI Matthew "Dot" Cotton 17 Recurring Main
Lennie James DCI Tony Gates 6 Main
Keeley Hawes DI Lindsay Denton 12 Main
Daniel Mays Sergeant Danny Waldron 4 Main
Thandie Newton DCI Roseanne "Roz" Huntley 6 Main
Stephen Graham John Corbett 6 Main
Rochenda Sandall Lisa McQueen 6 Main

Saxonvsjones (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say "the series no longer follows AC-12 main corrupt police officer suspects for season 5" - but how do we know that yet. We are only one episode in and if we learnt anything from the prior series - we know nothing yet! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you completely. A senseless proposal which would be better served to the recycling bin. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings[edit]

Why are the ratings recorded in 28 day data and not 7 day? --Slindsell15 (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should look at the way the ratings are recorded for Line of Duty. The first two series are recorded with 7 day and from series 3 onwards the ratings are 28 day. I'm advising they all be 7 day data. --Slindsell15 (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for consistency - but why plumb for the 7 day and not the 28 day data. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first two series were recorded with 7 day ratings as the 28 day were not available, so why not continue with the 7 day. There's a massive jump in ratings between series two and three. The 28 day is correct and is valid but I think that 7 day shows a more accurate rating as it adds the rating together from 7 days after the original air date.--Slindsell15 (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

either way consistency is better - might be worth straw-polling similar articles to se what others prefer. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Series 4 naming consistency[edit]

Series 4 in the summaries has naming inconsistencies for Huntley – it initially refers to her as 'Huntley' but then switches to 'Roz' before using 'Huntley' every now and then. Having a read through some of the other series, there is some usages of 'Steve' and 'Kate'. Any thoughts on a ruling here? I feel like it should either always refer to first name or always second name, or perhaps just insignificant to raise! --Liamwpk (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct and it worries me too. The Wikipedia choice is to use surnames only. The issue here is that we have both husband and wife in the same plot, so to revert to Huntley will not work. With regard to the main two characters there is no call for anything other than surnames after the first mention. Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By "family names" I assume you mean "given names" (i.e. the "Chris" of "Chris Froome") :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Just did not want to risk offending anyone. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume then you mean avoiding the use of "Christian name" - which is often quite accurate, but I understand your reticence. The normal term now used is "given name". :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. My error. I have edited my response above.Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split?[edit]

(Content moved to #List of episodes section (above) on 16 April 2019; Section restored, with explanation, for transparency. Swanny18 (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
There is a discussion here about splitting the Episodes section out to its own article (this was done on 3 April, then revertedas it was too soon)
It might be more germane to ask where the discussion is that led to the page being merged here in the first place; unless there is a consensus for that, the List of Episodes page should simply be restored... Comments? Swanny18 (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See responses above. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split, another proposal[edit]

Now that the episode list has been resolved, is it worth doing the same with the cast list? The characters/personnel section here is pretty full, and is tending to dominate the page. How about moving it to a 'List of Line of Duty characters' page, and just having a summary of the main characters here? (For other, similar pages, see Spooks, Law & Order, The Wire) Comments? Swanny18 (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the idea with a few cautions. Firstly the section has been rather fragmented into different roles within the drama. These roles actually change as the plot/narrative develops. So this means assignment rather depends on where the viewer is in the 'timeline'. For myself I would assign character to formal role that they have rather than to how they turn-out. In other words - leave out the idea of who are suspects - which changes even within episode. Secondly the main article could do with have a 'very' trimmed down list of main characters; maybe just a dozen or so, those that appear in more than one series - perhaps using the graphical presentation which two editors have tried to introduce as 'extra' cast information (see Cast List above). These have been guilty of cast overload in the main article; and on one occasion the list of those included was far too numerous to be really useful. Also with this the categorization of 'main', 'recurring', etc. need careful consideration. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for posting here.
My reaction to these recent proposals is to agree with you on pretty much all and I oppose moving the cast to yet another article. Always, we must consider the reader. How tedious to have to flip from one article to another. Much better to concentrate on improving rather than deleting. Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These edits by Hogyn Lleol are a great improvement. Thank you! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, didn't see this on the talk page before I did it. Just saw a long list in need of tidying! Hogyn Lleol (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin: The advantage of a separate page is that the information can be presented in different forms eg. a table of characters showing which series they've been in, followed by an alphabetical list with notes on each, plus/then a breakdown of personnel per unit. That would be too cumbersome in the main article. All that needs to be here on the main page is a list or, (for preference/consistency with other, similar, articles) a table of the main characters (say the three recurring characters, plus the main suspect/s from each series) such as the one proposed above. Another way of selecting main characters is the billing in the programmes as shown. Swanny18 (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth: It's just as tedious to wade through yards of character detail to get to (say) production information; it depends which way you look at it. And we won't be deleting anything; the information would just be moved to another venue. If the reader actually does want to refer from one list to another (say from a mention in an episode summary to a character) then following a link is as easy as scrolling up and down. And referring from one to another within the cast list is as easy on a dedicated page as it is here. What's the problem? Swanny18 (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have a lot of sympathy with this view. However I believe a better option for the moment is what someone has started which are series articles - Not sure I like the verbose nature of the plot elements these would be better in a more summarised form. But putting the series cast together with the play overview for the series is, in my view, a good idea. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These have now been reverted as far as the main article is concerned. It was stated in the "Edit summary" that these were without discussion "true" and unexplained "not true" the original modification came with it's own "edit summary" which explained. I will at least return the link to the series article so people can see what is being referred to - at the very least. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I jumped the gun by moving characters to series pages yesterday as I didn't see the discussion link. I'm not a fan of the layout of the cast on this page, it's very cluttered and is organised in an in-universe style, rather than in any meaningful way. In my (humble) opinion I think the best way to approach this is to have the main cast on this page and minor characters on the pages for series 1-series 5 (which are now all up-and-running). This is, to the best of my knowledge, the way that other TV series' casts are listed. Unframboise (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And, it seems, you've jumped the gun again. You have stated your opinion on what to do here; I suggest waiting for a consensus on how to proceed. Swanny18 (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I find myself agreeing in principle with Unframboise above on the distribution of cast. I particularly like his comment on the in-universe style - the main article should avoid this element - even the suspect part should be avoided on this page, leaving this to the series or more 'in-universe' article. I also agree with Swanny18 when he talks of the summary cast list of the main page - this should be like the graphical form mentioned above (see Cast List above). This needs a little tweaking to keep is tightly focus on the main characters, should be careful with how others are described, and should major on real world information and character title only. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support going with the in real life proposal for the main article and the in universe style for the remaining articles. May I link users & readers to this...(?) Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the proposal now? To split the Cast section between 6 series articles? Is it worth agreeing on a course of action before carrying it out? I've already raised the question of attribution; there'll need to be a clear statement somewhere of what the outcome of all this is. Swanny18 (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See your point - feature of too many things being done at once by editors. May I suggest a new poll of opinion "Should non main cast be moved to series articles - and main article be for main cast only". Or is that too many ideas? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kevinalewis, I second the poll -- it seems redundant having single series guest stars listed in multiple locations. That's certainly not how its done on any TV series page I've come across. Consensus is definately needed on the move, however. Gareth Griffith-Jones, thanks for linking the MOS, I couldn't think of where I'd read in universe guidelines off the top of my head. You're a life-saver. Unframboise (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Kevin, on the first point, should non main cast be moved...; to be clear, they've already been copied to the series pages, so the issue is actually should they be deleted from here. On that, I've nothing against series articles, but I can see the point of a centralized character list somewhere, as the information can be then presented in different ways. Also, Unframboise, if you are going to copy other peoples work into articles you create, you need (as I've already told you) to attribute them, not leave as if you wrote them yourself. And, as the episode list page has also been copied to the series pages and is now having lumps taken off it, we need to discuss what to do with that as well. Swanny18 (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support to split. This is a highly popular show with five seasons already and each introduces a bunch of new characters. Each episode and its characters are discussed in RS in lengthy reviews and rehashes. Not only that, the show continues to mention the events of past series and those characters, so they remain relevant, and continue to be discussed in reliable sources. It's really not that complicated. See List of Deadwood characters. If you want to do a table, or some kind of flow chart with relationships or whatever, that would be taking it to the next level and not part of this decision to split. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to split. Five seasons and Line Of Duty has become a part of television history. Also outside the UK. Boeing720 (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless the ambition is to substantially expand the section. I think it's fine the way it is. The comparison article examples given have a summary that is way longer than this "full" one. I also decline a character presence table in the main article. Frankly I think you guys take this too seriously, it's just a crime TV show. It's good but still not special enough or big enough to warrant a huge character synopsis. But that's me, if people really want to spend time on that, go ahead. Take my opinion on a split with that in mind. A much more important development of this article would be to have a section on international broadcasting. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting[edit]

I've split this off since a new issue with the cast list has arisen and the body of the previous discussion is over a year old. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a separate article. List of Line of Duty characters This is becoming relevant again with the new series being broadcast presently. The main article is becoming long and heavy and needs tidying. I have attempted to do so with the introduction of a table to simplify the main cast section - however I have been reverted several times, no matter what I edit on the page. It seems that one user wants the article to remain a mess and retain full control. That's a shame. There are other articles which have been tidied up, had tables introduced into them in this way and long descriptions moved off appropriately. Someone (else) will need to intervene here, otherwise the mess will remain. SlippyLina (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do as you will on your new article, but stop editing this article until a consensus exists. Your dialogue this morning with Drmargi amounts to vandalism. Please refrain from editing the main article.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The new article currently doesn't even exist as someone has wiped it. As for a consensus as far as I can see there is enough support for a split. The discussion has been open for near on 2 years - however what seems to be happening is a couple of users dominating the scene and simply reverting anything they don't like, even introducing errors and problems in the process. The mess is only going to get worse if no one sorts it out and as the series grows larger still. I have put in some work on it but a lot of it has simply been reverted willy-nilly several times for no reason. The current version is still very poor and not reader-friendly. But I am sure you will do as you please despite others putting in their work and their varied opinions. I find this a shame. I have noted that the answer is often 'revert', 'revert', 'this is all vandalism'. The users who revert though let more errors creep in and they don't actually do much, if anything, in the way of improving the articles and so the mess stays put. As far as I can see the actual vandalism is all of this constant reverting of the real work being done. Shame. SlippyLina (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SlippyLina, there are a number of issues with your edits. First of all, you're a very new editor taking on a major task without learning how to do what you're attempting to do properly. Your edits last night created more problems than they solved and were full of errors, which is why I kept removing them. Moreover, you seem to be unwilling to work with other editors based on your talk page history, which consists of notes from other editors and warnings about policy issues immediately removed, and in the case of mine, labeled vandalism. Before you go any further, you really should learn about basic editing practices, what the parameters of vandalism are and review the Manual of Style for television articles. It would also be helpful if you were willing to work with other editors rather than trying to barge through, going it on your own. You'll certainly have a better experience.
No one has "wiped" the cast article; it's just been redirected and the content is all in the edit history. There are a number of issues with your cast article. You need a good, current model to work from, such as The Crown. Second, you need to learn the policies for determining cast status. You can't arbitrarily decide an actor is/is not main cast. That's determined by billing. You persist in moving Lennie James to guest cast for Season 1, yet not only was he main cast, he was billed first. The same is true for Daniel Mays and Anna Maxwell Martin; both were billed as main cast and we have to list them that way. Moreover, the single-season cast listed are recurring, not guest cast. Once your article is cleaned up satisfactorily, you can remove the redirect and begin to edit the main article so reduce the number of recurring cast listed. That's what cast articles are designed to do. But you have a long, long way to go before the cast article is ready to use. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What a load of utter nonsense. The redirect merely points to the original version of the main article and not the version which I worked on but the incorrect one that you continue to guard and revert ensuring it stays both wrong and a mess. I will not be working on and am no longer monitoring either page or their talk pages, as it is clearly a waste of my time, other editors have had the same problem it seems.
You revert anything which is not to your liking on this and other articles, even if there is consensus on the talk page. It's easy to sit there and just revert stuff, without even checking. But this doesn't contribute in any way to articles or help expand/improve them and reverting willy-nilly as you continue to do, introduces more problems and errors all the time. Reverting in this way is merely a form of vandalism which you're able to get away with. You're also clearly confused as I did not edit the article last night. You need to learn how wikipedia works and be willing to work with others, accepting the point of view of others, especially if there are several of them on the same track, but different from yours.
Don't be afraid of those who you claim to be new and please do not use offensive language when describing others or their behaviour, even when referring to them indirectly on others' talk pages. Thank you and good luck! SlippyLina (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think a separate page is necessary, but needs to be done well of course. Am happy to help once we reach a consensus - Peterpie123rww (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits[edit]

Hi all, I’m not a regular editor but yesterday came across this page after discovering the series and was shocked at how poorly the entry was written/put together. I did what I thought were some pretty basic edits, especially in the main overview, but they have since been deleted and the old version of the entry has been restored. Can I ask why? Jda28 (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Gareth Griffith-Jones talk history:
I did leave a message a while ago on the Line of Duty page, but have had no reply.
Thanks, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jda28 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find you in the article's Revision history so I am unable to reply today. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement of content, lowering quality of key sentence; edit warring[edit]

@Gareth Griffith-Jones: @Drmargi: can I ask why you are continuously replacing a sentence that makes full sense by itself and has a fleshed out ref from a v. reliable source with one that doesn't and that has a poor, URL-only ref from a less respected website? - Peterpie123rww (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you're the one edit warring. This discussion should have been started when you were first reverted without further reverts. Second, the reference used is complete, but in a shorthand format that reduces duplications. I'd also question your assessment of the Independent v. the Radio Times, but what's the diff if they say the same thing and the latter is a television publication? This is much ado about nothing. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, more importantly, Plagiarism. Your blatant copy of BBC material is a breach of copyright and has been reported. Please read Wikipedia:Copyright violations. [1] Clearly copied 'n' pasted.
You cannot write a summary of a plot that is yet to be broadcast.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Macdonald[edit]

I ask why you continue to revert my edit on the Series 6 cast? Kelly Macdonald is the guest star for this series and I'm not sure why you keep removing this with no context? The link to her page works and she is the correct cast member.

If you would look carefully at the cast list and read my edit summary, you would see she is already listed with the main cast. Your entry is both a duplicate and in the wrong place. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ Busekrc, you must stop this incorrect reverting or you may be blocked. User:Drmargi is perfectly correct and you are stubbornly wrong.
I have added a new section heading as this has nothing to do with any matter above. You must sign and date any Talk page contribution.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Character articles[edit]

It appears that following the increased popularity of Season 6 there are now ample sources to support individual character articles, at least the main ones. Therefore, I have started work on draft articles for:

Any assistance in getting these articles up to scratch would be greatly appreciated. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you may spend your time however it pleases you, but having viewed your efforts so far, I can see that you are inaccurate and would be guilty of promoting sensational trivia.
Your observation above on Series six (Note: not Season) belies your claim that you have the ability.
I suggest that you read this.
Regards,
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gareth, thank you for highlighting the guidelines.
I saw you removed A Disastrous Affair as the first appearance of these characters with the note "A Disastrous Affair... WTF?". I checked again on iPlayer and iMDB and this is correct.
I also saw that you removed discussion of the character Fleming's outfits as "Not about the actor". I was wondering if you could share your concerns as to why this breaches Wikipedia guidelines as I thought this was well sourced, with two broadsheet newspapers and two magazines discussing the influence of the style choices for the character on the real world.
As always I assume WP:GOODFAITH.
Kind regards RoanokeVirginia (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone area code 01632[edit]

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[edit]

@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 ([2] [3]) 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[edit]

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

  • Yes: I believe he should as there are multiple high-quality secondary sources ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) 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 ([9] [10], [11]). 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Line_of_Duty&oldid=1222496486"