Talk:The Professionals (TV series): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Fourohfour (talk | contribs) |
Guns section |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::It's fair enough that is was removed, as the way in which I presented it was a little dodgy. But I heard it mentioned on a documentary about the series, and can't for the life of me place which one. I was hoping that someone else could. Maybe it can be re-added if someone can recall where it was exactly. =) (forgot to sign! not my day, is it!) [[User:Jay Firestorm|Jay Firestorm]] 15:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC) |
::It's fair enough that is was removed, as the way in which I presented it was a little dodgy. But I heard it mentioned on a documentary about the series, and can't for the life of me place which one. I was hoping that someone else could. Maybe it can be re-added if someone can recall where it was exactly. =) (forgot to sign! not my day, is it!) [[User:Jay Firestorm|Jay Firestorm]] 15:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::Oh well, I see what you're saying. Thanks anyway! [[User:Fourohfour|Fourohfour]] 13:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC) |
:::Oh well, I see what you're saying. Thanks anyway! [[User:Fourohfour|Fourohfour]] 13:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Guns section == |
|||
From a technical stand point (as anyone who knows anything about firearms will know), the guns section made no sense, so I've removed it. -- [[User:Pauric|Pauric]] (<small>[[User_talk:Pauric|talk]]-[[Special:Contributions/Pauric|contributions]]</small>) 21:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:09, 10 August 2007
 | Television Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Rumours
I removed this addition:-
- It is rumored that it wasn't until someone pointed out to him that royalties that would go to the wife of the by-then deceased Gordon Jackson, would considerably help her out financially, that Shaw finally relented.[citation needed]
Maybe I misunderstood the person's use of {{fact}}, but it sounds like they added something when they seriously doubted it themselves. There's nothing wrong with adding rumours, if they're widespread and their status is made clear. OTOH, it has to be verifiable that the rumour exists (regardless of its truthfulness) and is reasonably widespread. So, is it the existence of the rumour that's in dispute, or the fact itself? Fourohfour 13:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's fair enough that is was removed, as the way in which I presented it was a little dodgy. But I heard it mentioned on a documentary about the series, and can't for the life of me place which one. I was hoping that someone else could. Maybe it can be re-added if someone can recall where it was exactly. =) (forgot to sign! not my day, is it!) Jay Firestorm 15:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh well, I see what you're saying. Thanks anyway! Fourohfour 13:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's fair enough that is was removed, as the way in which I presented it was a little dodgy. But I heard it mentioned on a documentary about the series, and can't for the life of me place which one. I was hoping that someone else could. Maybe it can be re-added if someone can recall where it was exactly. =) (forgot to sign! not my day, is it!) Jay Firestorm 15:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Guns section
From a technical stand point (as anyone who knows anything about firearms will know), the guns section made no sense, so I've removed it. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 21:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)