Talk:The Apprentice (British TV series)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

What do these references mean?

In the article, the statement

"All of the candidates film their post-firing "walk of shame" at the beginning of the series, at the same time as the scene where they are all seen walking into the Amstrad building at the beginning of the first episode."

is supported by references that simply state "The Apprentice. Series 2, Episode 1" and "The Apprentice. Series 2, Episode 7". I am curious as to how these references are supposed to support the statement. Surely the way the "walk of shame" is filmed wasn't actually explained in those episodes, was it? If not then what does it mean? Matt 12:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

In "The Apprentice. Series 2, Episode 1", the contestant Samuel was seen walking into the AMSTRAD building along with the other applicants. He had long hair and (I believe) a blue suit trousers under his long hair. In "The Apprentice. Series 2, Episode 7", Samuel got fired. He walked out of the building at the end of the episode with long hair and (again, I believe) a blue suit trousers. The problem? Samuel had shaved his hair off just a week or so "earlier".Dalejenkins 07:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's fair enough. I have moved the reference to come after the sentence it actually supports, and also explained what the reference means based on your explanation (otherwise no-one would have any idea). Please feel free to correct as necessary. Matt 01:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

HELP!

I just made an edit and the "History" section has disappeared! Half of it is merged with "Format", but you can see it all when you "Edit this page". HELP!!! Dalejenkins 16:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That had me puzzled... found the problem eventually, and have restored your changes. The problem was you didn't close the ref tag, when you wanted to insert a reference already given a name (ie <ref name="sum"> should have been <ref name="sum" />). Good job with adding references, by the way! _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Seasons section

I propose that this section be removed and anything of importance in it merged into a suitable section. All 3 series are already wikilinked in the opening paragraph AND in the template at the bottom. Whilst there is useful information in this section, there is a lot of repetition... for example, the first few sentences for series 2 are useless as it has already been outlined in the article that SAS, Nick and Margaret are present in all series. Seaserpent85 18:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose. How a TV series can have an article without a "seasons" section is beyond me. Dalejenkins 16:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, calm yourself down. Most other reality tv show pages don't have this section - Big Brother, The Apprentice US etc. The point I am making is that the info in this section is repeated, I think you are kidding yourself if you think this is anyway near FA to be honest.Seaserpent85 17:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you both make reasonable points here: whilst I agree with Dale that some sort of seasons section / overview is probably a good idea, I certainly agree with Seaserpent85 that there is too much repetition in this section. All of the seasons have been made by the BBC and all have featured Sir Alan Sugar and his advisers. Since we state that early on in the article, I see no reason in repeating this information for each series. Stating the winner of each, would be a good idea, however. I also think we go into too much depth on season 2 - in particular, I really don't consider Michelle's pregnancy to be sufficiently notable to be included here (I have removed it in the past, but this was reverted). I'd relegate that to the article on the season concerned. Also, why do we randomly include the coffee task from Season 3? We don't mention any other tasks, and that one wasn't particularly notable. Seaserpent85 is certainly correct that this section needs a lot of work, if this article is to reach FA status. I'd also be tempted to make the Comic Relief section a subsection of the series section, and to trim the quantity down a bit (going into detail is the job of the main article on Comic Relief Does The Apprentice). Any thoughts on this? _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 17:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've just had a go at reducing what's in Seasons per my above comments. Still scope for improvements, though. Any comments? _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Series 4

This is getting ridiculous - there is no need for this to have its own article, all that is needed is a sentence stating it is planned. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, the guidelines state that articles on future events should only be included if they are notable - this is not. At least wait until this series has finished and the next has started filming. Seaserpent85 17:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• As with Big Brother UK, when the audition application process starts-the article is created. Dalejenkins 17:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Hmm... whilst I do agree this may be getting a bit carried away, and would personally not have created an article for Season 4 yet, I would refer you to the start of the Crystal Ball guidelines you reference: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". Now... this isn't unverified (since the BBC have announced the series). With regard to notability: the season is of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred (we've got articles on the other seasons, after all). Whether we actually have enough content to write an article on Season 4 is, however, debatable... If it is ascertained that we do not, then I would recommend redirecting that article to the appropriate subsection of this article, until such time as more information becomes available. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Seeing as filming has typically occurred during October and is kept very much under wraps, we would be looking at an article with very little info in it until January time, when the first signs of information start to be released. I support the idea of redirecting the article until such a time when enough information is available.Seaserpent85 18:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with SeaSerpent here again, I'm afraid - looking at the Series 4 article, I can't see that it says anything that isn't really already said in this article. For the moment removal of the article, or a redirect seems the most appropriate course of action --Fritzpoll 19:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• I've just noticed that the The Apprentice (UK series 3) article was first created on 17 August, 2006 with the contents The third series of the UK version of The Apprentice will begin in February 2007. Alan Sugar will return as the boss. There will still be 14 contestants, and one of them will get Alan Sugar's £100,000 job. It was deleted 5-days later since "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". Per my msg above, I'd be in favour of a redirect for Season 4, for the time being. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's three-to-one in favour of a redirect. If noone else wades in by this time tomorrow, I'll set the redirect up myself. Fritzpoll 21:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• No further comments, so I have made the Series Four page redirect here - this may mean that we want to remove the links to Season 4 on this page. Fritzpoll 16:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy: too trivial?

Some of the information in the "Criticism and controversy" section seems to me to be too trivial to merit inclusion, and I'm tempted to delete it. For example:

Former candidate Ruth Badger has also slammed the show during the third series run. She branded the candidates "weird". She singled out Tre Azam, saying she'd "crush him within a minute" and "smack him".

Series 3 star Kristina Grimes was branded a "sex-mad liar" and "fucking witch" by her husband whilst on the show in an interview with The Sun Online, 34-year-old Jackie Adams said "We got caught one night by military police having sex on my Nissan ZX’s bonnet at my base. They laughed".

This kind of gossip and froth is pumped out in huge volumes by the popular media, and we could probably fill pages and pages with it. But is it really of sufficient import to be in an encyclopedia? Matt 23:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

I would agree, and believe that much of the material from the tabloid press could be removed (see above). I mostly don't see how this content directly relates to the subject of "The Apprentice (UK)". At a stretch, the one about Ruth Badger could be acceptable as it relates directly to the text, but the latter case is almost certainly worthless. Personally, would vote for both bits to be removed. --Fritzpoll 23:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Phew, thought it was just me! This really gets on my nerves - none of this is particularly notable, yet certain editors (Dale in particular), seem to put every single story that the NOTW, The Sun and The Mirror churn out. I'd also vote for those examples above, along with a fair few others.Seaserpent85 23:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we could certainly find other sources for a lot of the more relevant information, as my constant rewrites of series 3 week 6 are demonstrating. Its not a case of being snobbish personally even, but I'm fairly certain we shouldn't use sources that rely on hearsay (i.e. so-and-so told the paper that X had told them "something sensationalist") and also use sources that people reading these pages are going to find credible. And like it or not, the tabloid press, which changes its stories more often that I eat hot dinners, does not project the front of a reliable secondary/tertiary source of information. I would go further and recommend that we make a concerted effort to seek out these sources in the articles, find more appropriate replacements, and get rid of them all. Anyone want to help me with this? Fritzpoll 10:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, you guys remove trivia not related to the show and place it in the correct section of the candidates article. Dalejenkins 11:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think we kind of decided that the Ruth Badger one wasn't ok, Dale. But I won't clear it away again until you've had a chance to comment again --Fritzpoll 12:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that a lot of this information isn't encyclopaedic. This section should give a general overview of controversy caused by the show and any criticism which is notable. At present, we effectively just have bullet points of trivial garbage. In my opinion, the section needs to be stripped down further and rewritten - 3 or so paragraphs at most. The quote from Tre isn't justified by its context, there is no need to have the word cunt on here. Seaserpent85 13:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Seaserpent85, Wikipedia is against censorship. The word is used in context, so it's alright. :-D Dalejenkins 17:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I might attempt a rewrite of this paragraph into prose to try to make it more encyclopaedic. --Fritzpoll 19:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Dale, what I mean is that I don't feel it is necessary to have that quote from Tre. Per wiki guidelines, such words "should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available" - something I don't think this quote meets. Seaserpent85 21:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The article as a whole is definitely improving, but going per section, Criticism and controversy is the largest single section of the article. I think care needs to be taken to ensure that this section does not skew the balance of the piece. Given the discussion on triviality above, it might be worth considering just including a general comment and hiving this off into a separate article...? EyeSerene^TALK 14:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Candidates

I think it's time we had a bit of a mini-drive on referencing the List of The Apprentice UK candidates article - particularly as some of you may have added the info, making the job a lot easier! I've done a fairly hefty reworking of the Series 1 candidates but I've still not been able to find a few sources. Any help would be hugely appreciated, the candidate bios are very important yet receive very little input compared to the other Apprentice pages. Thanks in advance! Seaserpent85 23:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Random Template

I've been bold and removed the "apprenticecandidates" template from this page. I see no good reason for listing every single apprentice candidate there has ever been, as well as this, it clutters up the lower half of the article and doesn't serve any purpose considering there are individual series pages and a list of candidates. If there are significant objections then we can change back, but the article needs a tidy-up if we're going to get it to GA status. Seaserpent85 14:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This type of template is Reality TV practice-see Big Brother (UK) (under Previous series) and The X Factor (TV series)#Format.Dalejenkins 17:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally quite like the inclusion of {{Apprenticecandidates}} here - it gives a nice overview of all the seasons, and lists the contestants in a succinct manner without junking up the text. Note that this is the only place in which the template is used, so should it be decided that we remove it (not that I'm advocating that!), it ought be deleted... _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I've taken the article tag at its word & made a few minor edits to try and improve the article style. I don't watch it myself so I hope I haven't introduced any factual errors ;)

A few extra points:

(1) The description so-called "apprentice" could do with improving - is the winner apprenticed to Alan Sugar or not (taking the word in its most general sense)?

I wrote that description. The intention was to indicate that, although the show is called "The Apprentice", the winner does not actually become an "apprentice" to Sir Alan in any normal sense of the word. In fact, they probably just end up in some fairly pointless and anonymous middle-management role. If you can think of a better way of succinctly conveying this in the intro then please go ahead! Matt 16:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

What a riduculous excuse. That's pure WP:WEASEL. 80.41.13.34 18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh?? Matt 18:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing so-called has made a big difference - it reads much better. To further clarify, how about something for the second sentence like: In reality, rather than becoming apprentices in the traditional sense, series winners are rewarded with management positions in Sir Alan's global hi-tech Amstrad corporation. EyeSerene^TALK 20:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The new wording looks great to me, but I just have one small query. Are we sure that the winner is definitely going to work for Amstrad? I just have this vague recollection of hearing that the job would be with "one of my companies" (i.e. potentially not Amstrad), but I could be completely wrong... On another note - and I'm just curious, not wanting to put it back in the article - is "so-called" a term that's not widely understood? Matt 22:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst "so-called" is a completely accurate description, it can have mildly perjorative connotations: eg Joe Bloggs, so-called footballer meaning he calls himself a footballer, but no-one else does. Personally I feel that any word or phrase that can be read more than one way is best reworded to remove any ambiguity and accusations of NPOV EyeSerene^TALK 14:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(2) Use of the word show throughout comes across as an Americanism or as UK slang (programme is more correct). However, I might just be being picky...

My view is that "show" is now acceptable mainstream usage in the UK. Matt 17:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Although, programme is more appropriate. 80.41.13.34 18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just spent a while trawling on Google and can't find any indication either way. I still prefer programme as more encyclopedic, but I can't in all honesty make an overwhelming case ;) For me it boils down to the usage of the words: one would probably not say "I watched a television show" but instead (more colloquially) "I watched a TV show". Substituting programme for show in either sentence works... thus show is almost exclusively a less formal term. EyeSerene^TALK 20:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(3) The quote "more mainstream audience" needs attribution.

I have added a reference - this is the BBC's own description. (And I wish that Wikipedia did not introduce large amounts of unwanted white space around my replies!) Matt 17:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(4) The numbers for Peak Viewers in the table at the bottom don't tie up with those in the History section (!)

I have tweaked one reference, but the other is more problematic as you have given 2 different numbers for peak viewing (5.7M in History and 6M in the viewing figures table...), and both of them are correctly referenced by the BBC! I think a difference of 300,000 (~5%) is significant enough to make a fuss over, so maybe the article should pick a figure and stick with it? EyeSerene^TALK 14:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any definitive information I have just added a note to the Viewing Figures section that sources differ slightly. Matt 18:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

(5) Keep numbers consistent (ie Series 1 or Series One). One general rule of thumb is to write in full all numbers lower than ten.

(6) In para 4 of the Format section, it might be better to avoid using "boardroom" as this term (in the context of the programme) is not explained until much later in the article. Maybe a descriptive phrase instead?

I have added a note here about what the "boardroom" is. The term "boardroom" really has to be used because that's what it's called everywhere throughout the show. Matt 17:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your explanation works well in indicating why you have boardroom in quotes. EyeSerene^TALK 20:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading the article - hope this is of some help! EyeSerene^TALK 20:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler necessary?

There's a spoiler tag around the series section, yet I'm not sure it's necessary. The most it spoils is revealing the winners - yet they are already revealed above that in the history section... Personally I'm in favour of removing the tag, but I wondered what others thought...? _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree - there's already the template along the side with all the winners etc. so there's no need for this section in particularly to be tagged. Seaserpent85 21:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism and Controversy - reference error

Whilst rewriting this section, trying to use (for the first time!) the cite news tags, I seem to have inadvertently introduced two references that are the same. They are references 42 and 43 in the first paragraph or so, and I don't know how to make them *both* 42 - can someone a) fix this and b) tell me how they did it :) --Fritzpoll 22:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. For future reference (excusing the pun!) you just need to name a reference when it is first used, and refer to this name on subsequent occasions. As an example: citation 1 could be <ref name="bbc">{{cite news |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk ...etc... }}</ref> and subsequent citations could be <ref name="bbc" /> and yet again <ref name="bbc" />. Hope this gives the idea... the only trouble with that system is that you need to pick a sensible unique name for the ref! _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 23:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

PS - good job with the rewrite! _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 23:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that UkPaolo! --Fritzpoll 23:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism and Controversy - The Apprentice: You're fired

Does the criticism/controversy section need the entry about the spin-off show, or should this piece of info be moved into the article The Apprentice: You're Fired!?. I promise this will be my last comment about this section today! Fritzpoll 23:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You've just brought up another point as well as this - there is no section in the article explaining what The Apprentice: You're Fired is about. I'm not entirely sure where it should slot in so I'll leave that to someone else to decide. Seaserpent85 23:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Include the infomation in both, we haven't split the section RE series, so we'll do the same with spin-offs (eg. Comic Relief and Fired). Yes, seaserpent, that needs to be done. Dalejenkins 23:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is what you mean, but we could have a separate "spin off" section, in which we have subsections on the Comic Relief special (moved from series) and a new (brief) sub section on You're Fired.... _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 23:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

New section "Related Programmes" to try to make this happen: please review summary of You're Fired! and make necessary adjustments - I'm not sure the wording is right, but can't see how to change it. Fritzpoll 00:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro link

Minor point, but... in our introduction we state The Apprentice is modelled on the US series of the same name. In my recent changes I moved the wiki link as follows The Apprentice is modelled on the US series of the same name, thinking that was more logical and made it more obvious that the link was to the page about the US series of the Apprentice, as opposed to a page about US television series in general. An anon user has just reverted this change, stating that the former was "more logical", so I thought I'd see what others thought... _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 23:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see both points of view. But I think linking "US Series" implies a wikilink to tell you what a US series is, so I think your version is less ambiguous. Fritzpoll 23:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was my thinking _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 23:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

My preference is The Apprentice is modelled on the US series of the same name Dalejenkins 23:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That would seem a reasonable compromise (albeit a bit of a long link!) _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 23:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of any other way to put it without the long wikilink unfortunately. Off-topic, but it's nice to see everyone finally all getting to work on this article - won't be long until GA at this rate! :) Seaserpent85 23:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - it's good to see talk page discussion about proposed changes :o) _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• I was the "anon" who did it. To be honest I didn't realise I was reverting someone else's recent change. Please change it to whatever you feel is best. Matt 00:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Fair enough, I'll change it per Dale's suggestion for the time being. Matt - you've made some very valuable contributions to the article - have you considered setting up an account with Wikipedia so that you can edit under your own username? See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for details _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Slightly inadequate reference?

The reference for the statement: 'The "boardroom" (and the reception area outside) is in fact a custom-built set in a West London television studio' merely states that 'The programme credits Duke Island Studios under "Facilities"' I don't really see how this supports the claim. "Facilities" could mean anything. Anyone got a better reference? All I could find was chat rooms which clearly won't do... Matt 00:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Hmm, that's a fair point - I would agree that the source is inadequate... _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Explanation for revert

Reverting change by "Matt" (judging by IP address) would normally lead me to leave a message for him/her on the talk page, but they are not registered, so I will leave it here. I have made the revert of you removal of the information on the "spin-off" in the controversy section because it is the subject of ongoing debate, and it would be more helpful if the material were still there once a conclusion has been reached. I would encourage you to enter your thoughts under the heading above ("Criticism and controversy: The Apprentice: You're Fired!") so that the debate can be better informed Fritzpoll 00:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't notice your note before I posted the section below! Matt 00:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Removal of more "criticism"

I removed the following, but the change was reverted:

Spin-off programme, The Apprentice: You're Fired!, was criticised by contestant Natalie Wood, who complained about host Adrian Chiles for asking whether her Essex accent had been a hindrance: "But how can you pick up on my accent when Sir Alan is sitting across the table" commented Wood. "How can he say that? Essex is fantastic and I'm proud to come from Essex. A lot of people from Essex are very successful. I find it hard to swallow."

I understood that my suggestion above that items like this should be removed had support, but if there's disagreement about this particular item then let's discuss it individually. In my opinion this is utterly trivial and does not belong either here, or in any article about any of the individuals involved. Any other views? Matt 00:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

I would fully agree with you there... I really don't think that is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion, and a number of similarly trivial tabloid press stories have already been removed... _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

But, this is a criticism of the programme itself, how is this not "sufficiently notable to merit inclusion". Dalejenkins 08:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly a criticism of The Apprentice, if anything it's a criticism of Adrian Chiles and The Apprentice: You're Fired. But in any case, to my mind it just reads like a comment to the tabloid press, which they've hyped up a bit. Do you really think the remark is all that notable in an encyclopaedia article about The Apprentice in the UK as a whole? In context I just don't think it is... Would a reader looking to read a good encyclopaedia article about the Apprentice television series in the UK really find that comment particularly relevant? notable? useful? I doubt it... It really doesn't add anything to the article in my opinion. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

My revert wasn't based on supporting its inclusion, simply that it was still under discussion. Personally, I think it can and should be removed, or at the very least placed in The Apprentice: You're Fired! --Fritzpoll 15:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

New Template

The joys of insomnia have led me to tinker about with the apprentice template. I've modified an existing one for use for the Apprentice, but I thought I'd put it up to see what everyone thinks before going ahead and replacing it - see here. Seaserpent85 02:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

nice layout, and I much prefer the way you've linked all the different seasons. Far too colourful in my opinion though (and I don't like the brown!) _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 07:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, matches the show's colour scheme. I made 1 or 2 changes though. Dalejenkins

Glad you noticed that, Dale! I don't like the brown either, that's a remnant of the previous template which I didn't get around to changing. I'll fiddle around with it and see what looks best without being overpowering. Seaserpent85 08:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditching the brown would be a good improvement. Do those titles really need a background colour? I'd have thought making them bold on the same background would look just as good... _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (just seen this version and it looks good! in fact I was too hasty to say that it is too colourful, without the brown it looks very nice _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 09:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

Also, referring to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Formatting issues it is also almost never a good idea to use other style changes, such as font family etc. Whilst I think the effect you're trying to achieve for the title may merit a change to font, it would probably be sensible to stick to the default font when linking to the series (much as I like the one you've chosen) so as to ensure consistency... _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 09:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Three other things I just thought of... firstly we need to standardize use of "Series 1" cf. "Series One" per the comments above. Personally, I prefer the latter (which is inkeeping with the subsection headings we have on this article). Whatever, I think we should agree a style, and the new template should reflect this. Secondly, I think it might look nicer to add a bit more padding top and bottom around the series links so that they don't look so squashed. Just a thought! Finally, are the "notable candidates" in any order? I'd have thought either chronologically (ie series one candidates first) or alphabetically (by surname) would be sensible... _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 09:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, got everything you mentioned in there! I agree on everything pretty much. As I said before, a lot of the formattin on there came from the orginal template (The OC I believe), so they just needed tweaking a bit! I'll replace the main template and let everyone adjust as they see fit. Seaserpent85 09:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice one, it looks much better than we had previously! _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 09:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Youtube references

Having loitered at other pages, I get the feeling that the references to youtube videos are not on. This is partly because they link to something that might infringe copyright. I think replacements need to be found in those case where a reference is actually needed - I don't, for example, think that anyone would dispute the fact that HIGNFY spoofed them in their trailer. So, by my understanding (though check WP:CITE) we wouldn't need this reference. --Fritzpoll 10:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree with you on those points. There is a {{Cite episode}} template - so perhaps we could just cite the relevant episode of the programmes concerned (ie specifying air dates, programme name, channel etc) rather than linking to copies of the actual video? _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dates in History section

The dates in the history section seem to be incorrect. For example, it states that the 'series was imminent' on the same day as Sugar is revealed as the star. In between these 2 facts, it uses a date 2 weeks later as the date BBC Two were confirmed as the successful bidders - something which is already clear in the prior press releases from a fortnight before. I've rejigged it about and found a proper source for one of the press releases, but it's looking more and more like the other dates are incorrect. Just wanted to get another point of view before removing the dates completely. Seaserpent85 12:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

And as this link demonstrates, the rumour about Delia Smith frontinga series was around several months before the suggested 31 May date. -88.110.169.67 13:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The original text read:

News of a UK version of The Apprentice surfaced in early 2004, a year before the programme started airing. On March 18, 2004, FremantleMedia confirmed that a British version was "imminent". It was then announced on April 1, 2004 that BBC Two and Channel 4 were both bidding for the show’s rights, with the former eventually winning. On May 18, 2004, Alan Sugar was confirmed as the star of the new series.

I didn't write any of this, and cannot say if the dates are accurate, but I don't see any inconsistency. News surfaces early 2004; show confirmed in March 2004; bidding in April 2004; Sugar confirmed May 2004. I don't see a problem with that chronology? Matt 14:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

- the original references seem to bear out all the above dates. I've just wondered actually... you weren't by any chance reading "March 18, 2004" and "May 18, 2004" as the same date were you? Matt 14:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Oops, yep that does seem to be the case. However, the point still remains - many of the dates are from Digital Spy, which uses other sources for its info, hence dates aren't necessarily correct. Also Matt, do you have an account? It's very hard to leave messages etc for you, maybe you should consider getting one? Seaserpent85 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, probably I should... but any time I do anything with this article I normally check this page so I should see all the comments here. Regarding the references, well, yes, I suppose there might be a delay between the actual event and the date it was reported on Digital Spy. Maybe you could get around that by using phrasing such as "it was reported on such-and-such a date that..."? I think the dates, and the references themselves, are useful provided they are not way out... Matt 17:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Music

How come the list of music used was removed? It really annoys me to have to trawl through old revisions to find the one thing I want to know. -88.110.169.67 13:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have been deleted without explanation. I think we should be told why. Perhaps there are just too many different pieces of music used to make a meaningful list possible? I'm guessing... Matt 13:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

You've hit the nail on the head Matt, there are an additional 3 (or so) new pieces of music used every episode. I'll remove them for now-when the soundtrack comes out we'll put a track listing. Dalejenkins 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dale, it's illogical to remove ALL of the listed music here - 3 or 4 of those are used every episode but you've blanket reverted what was there before. I'll re-add the tracks that are used every series and every episode. Seaserpent85 15:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Have just found the tracklisting for the soundtrack - see [1]. It appears the album consists of Dru Masters' work, not any of the other music used, except for the Prokofiev track. Seaserpent85 16:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

To Seaserpent85,

yes i don't understand why you are keep deleting my edit. It is under the music section, and it is the tracklist of the c.d which is soon to be released. Im sure people would be interested in seeing what the tracklisting for the c.d is going to be.

Proposed split

I have proposed that the section "Criticism and controversy" be split, due to peer review comments (see "Criticism and controversy: Too Trivial?) Dalejenkins 20:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: I think what we really need to do is to not include so much stuff in this section. Some of it (such as the comment by Kahn) has been called into question by editors as being too trivial (see history edit comments) and I am inclined to agree. Criticisms of individual series of the show should be hived off into those relevant articles, and comments retained here should only relate directly to the series as a whole. This will reduce the size, and triviality of this section. There is certainly insufficient material for a separate article--Fritzpoll 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: As per Fritzpoll. There is very little useful information in this section, a lot of it isn't needed at all. Would anyone really look up "criticism of The Apprentice" in an encyclopaedia? Seaserpent85 20:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose: I really don't think this would be a good move, and agree fully with Fritzpoll's views above. If the section is too long (which I would agree it is!) then it is because there is too much content. There is not sufficient criticism/controversy to merit a separate article in my opinion. What we need to do is to trim down things which are really relevant to the Apprentice as a whole. Criticism/controversy of lesser note should be moved to the article on the appropriate series. Just because a newspaper (the tabloids in particular) print a story, doesn't mean it merits inclusion here. I'd vote to prune this section down, moving content to the relevant series articles, rather than start a new article (which, frankly, I think we'd find being discussed for deletion before too long). _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, Debate CLOSED, as I never agreed either; a peer reviewer suggested it above. Dalejenkins 15:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with the above comments - my concern was that this section was growing by accretion and, whilst trimming it would be the preferred option, the last thing this article needs (given the excellent attitude and cooperation of the various editors) is an edit war over what should stay and what should go ;) Looks like I was just being pessimistic - the slimline section as of now is vastly improved, and has the added benefit that some tabloidish language has vanished too. Good luck with the GA nomination, your efforts fully deserve GA status EyeSerene^TALK 17:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Proposal

Sorry I've not been hovering around this page as much - I was busy: managed to get Terry Wogan from nothing to GA status in a week . Having therefore looked at the process, I think this article can be nominated for GA status, and should pass happily, regardless of its flaws. As part of the assessment, we might get some feedback on getting to the next stage, and I think it would be good for us to have some sense of "achievement". So, in a few hours, unless I hear severe objections, I will make the nomination. TO be successful, however, I will also remove the proposed split tag, since it seems to have been opposed above. --Fritzpoll 14:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but we still need to "Cite Web". Dalejenkins 15:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost certain it's already up to GA standard - thanks to a push in the last week or so. Let's try and get the referencing all to 'cite web' ASAP as that's one of the most obvious tasks. If anyone thinks of any major points that need changing, put it in the 'to do' section and we can get it done. Good work so far everyone! :) Rob Seaserpent85 16:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's looking good, and I'd agree would probably pass GA, but would be nice to get the citation formats sorted first... _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 17:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Missed this before I nominated it.....fortunately there's a backlog, so if we work quickly... :) --Fritzpoll 17:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just spent the 2 most boring hours of my life getting through the refs - must've done about 20 or so. Procrastination takes such weird forms when it comes to revising for uni exams! Seaserpent85 19:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just finished converting all the refs to the "cite web" format, so all done as far as that goes! Seaserpent85 12:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice one - a good, worthwhile, and boring job well done. Good luck with the exams! _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Format - seven week filming

[2] suggests that it takes longer than seven weeks - answering a question "how long do we get off between tasks, Adam, fired before the end remember, says "We don't, I was there for seven weeks...." so I am going to amend this to something more ambiguous that I can reference --Fritzpoll 14:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame we can't include it - unfortunately there are strict limits on what the candidates can tell the press about what goes on behind the scene. If you look at forums where past candidates post, you'll find heaps of info that would be useful here, but we can't include it because it's not a reputable source. Seaserpent85 16:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Adam Hosker over on the Digital Spy forums to post on his official website/MySpace if the show is filmed over 7 week and if the boardroom is a set. Hopefully, WE'LL GET ANSWERS! :D Dalejenkins 17:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I very much doubt he will, though good on you for trying, Dale. I know one of this years candidates and their contracts are extremely limiting. Whilst they are free to talk about what goes on behind the scenes, they're not allowed to mention this in interviews or on their websites etc. Every single blog update each candidate does is checked by Taylor Herring before being published. Seaserpent85 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you allowed to say who? Dalejenkins

Given his location, I'd be guessing Rory, who was quite notorious in my neck of the woods --Fritzpoll 19:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Show vs. Programme

It was brought up in the peer review that the words 'show' and 'programme' seem to used interchangeably throughout the article. I think we need to agree on one and stick to it, much like we've done with "Series One/Series 1". Personally, I'm not bothered which is used - anyone got a preference? Seaserpent85 12:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Programme is more PC, and it's the "British" word, unlike the "American" show. Dalejenkins

I prefer "programme" - as Dale rightly says, it seems more British, and I also think it sounds more formal (which an encyclopedia article should be). I did replace a number of instances of "show" when that peer review comment was made. That said, I don't think some occurrences of "show" left over should be a problem. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Series pages

Since there seems to be a consensus that series numbers should be spelt, I was wondering whether it's time to change the individual series pages from "The Apprentice (UK series 1)" to "The Apprentice (UK series one)", etc.? Seaserpent85 12:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Brother USA seems to get away with digits. Dalejenkins 14:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any "getting away with" as such - I'm not sure we've got a policy either way. I think consistency is the most important thing - and providing we are consistent with either one or 1, I don't really mind either way. Personally, I prefer spelt (eg "one"). In which case, it may be worth moving the series pages _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoof section references

I shall try to changed these to episode citations this evening, if it isn't done before then. I am pondering how we can cite the HIGNFY trailer using this template...I'll give it some thought, but can I just use cite episode and 'pretend' the trailer was an episode of the show? --Fritzpoll 13:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

For the HIGNFY trailer, the episode it is advertising aired on Friday, April 13 as confirmed [3]. The advert says "HIGNFY, Friday at 9 on BBC One". So the advert aired between the 9th-11th of April 2006 (this is because on the 12th, the advert would have said "tommorow on BBC One"). Hope that helps. Dalejenkins

It did, Dale - thanks. Couldn't work out if a range of dates would work in the template, so for now, I've just put in the April 9 one. Please correct this if you think it needs updating --Fritzpoll 23:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"The Apprentice" cf. "The Apprentice UK"

Minor point which just struck me - the infobox at the top of the page is titled "The Apprentice", wheras the one below it, part way down is titled "The Apprentice UK". Consistency would be nice - anyone have any opinions on renaming the second "The Apprentice"? _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination – on hold

This article looks pretty decent to me. A few – mostly minor – things need to be addressed and I think this can be passed.

Images

Please provide detailed fair use rationales for all the pictures on the article as per WP:IDP Done

Infobox television

Use the num_series field rather than num_seasons to keep the infox consistent with the use of the word “series” for each run of the programme in the body of the text.  Done

The Board

If Alan Sugar is considered to be a member of the board, he should be included here with the other two. You haven't explained anywhere in the article, apart from the lead, who he is. Stick to the same format as with Hewer and Mountford i.e. lnk to main article and then add a few lines about him.  Done

Reception

Concentrates a bit too heavily on the criticisms of the series. For balance, you should find a quote from one or two more positive reviews – given the awards it has won, a lot of people must like the show. You should show that too. Done

Ratings

You seem to have conflicting data with regard to the ratings the show gained for the final of series two. The BARB website gives a figure of 5.95 million. BARB are the primary industry source for UK TV ratings so I would go with whatever figures they give as the correct ones.  Done

Soundtrack

The formatting of this section seems to be screwed up and should be fixed. Done

Once you've addressed all of the above, let me know on my talk page and I'll have another look. Good luck! - Joe King 10:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well done guys, I think we're nearly there. Just a few more things:

Reception

Personally, I'm not happy with articles that use user ratings from TV.com and IMDB, since they're not reliable sources. On the other hand there are articles - mostly Simpsons episodes - that have passed GA so it appears to be acceptable policy. If you could find more reviews from the newspapers (see next point), you should dump this line altogether, I think.  Done

"The programme has also recieved positive reviews from The Sunday Times, The Guardian, The Evening Standard and The Daily Mirror." Spelling mistake is highlighted in bold. If these reviews exist, can you not find them? At least three of these papers have websites so finding the articles so getting a few nice quotes can't be that hard.  Done

Filming locations

I see there's a {{Fact}} tag on one line - can you find a cite for this? If not, park it here on the talk page until one can be found.

Looked for 30mins, couldn't find it - removed from article, and won't restore it without a source (see lower down on the page) --Fritzpoll 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)  Done

Future series

Remove the hyperlink from "The official Apprentice website currently invites prospective candidates to apply for the fourth series of the programme.". The only place this form of linking should be used is in the External Links section; you can add it there if you think it's warranted. Done

Awards

You've mentioned the BAFTA win twice in the text - in the opening sentence and in the list that follows. For the cite, could you link the reference directly to the page that has the list of awards? I had to click past five pages before I found it.

If we do, for the old ones, it seems like it will have to be from a different site (i.e. not BAFTA, since they don't have archived HTML pages for previous winners, just the most recent ones --Fritzpoll 20:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. What I'm saying is that the cite on this line, "Other awards that the programme has won include:" points to this page whereas the list that follows is taken from this page; you should change the cite so it points directly to the latter page. Take the BAFTA - Features win out of the list because it's already mentioned above and, as duplicate information, is redundant. Joe King 21:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah!! Gotcha!  :) --Fritzpoll 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Done

Books

Move the image of the cover of Sugar's book up so it's in line with the section discussing it. Done

Again, leave a message on my talk page once you've dealt with these or if you want to clarify anything. - Joe King 19:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Blast! I forgot to mention: in the Soundtrack section you write, "It is expected to include

• Opening theme for first episode of each series: "The Fury of Schmidt" from the About Schmidt soundtrack by Rolfe Kent
• Opening theme: "Dance of the Knights" from Romeo and Juliet by Prokofiev
• The Boardroom, You're Fired and Closing Credits – "The Apprentice (Original Theme)" by Dru Masters".

This is total speculation and without a cite should not be included.

-Joe King 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, I think I've corrected this appropriately. The music quoted is known simply from the show. I've simply moved the comment about the release of the soundtrack until after the list, with the reference. There is therefore no speculation as to what will be on the soundtrack. I'll check this with you directly though --Fritzpoll 21:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)  Done (I think)

Much better. However, the article in the cite only refers to the Prokovief and Masters tracks as being used in the programme. Unless you have a cite for "The Fury of Schmidt", you should remove from the list. (you're nearly there, I promise!) Joe King 22:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just got rid of the track in question - problem arose there from the music section being converted in the soundtrack section! Dare I ask, anything else? :o) Seaserpent85 23:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's getting like Columbo; "Just one more thing before I go..." . OK, I'm passing the article, congratulations. I've made a few small formatting corrections myself. Best of luck with improving the article further! Joe King 18:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Positive Reception

I think we need to track down some newspaper-type reviews to provide quotes for balance - I've looked, but so far to no avail. Anyone got any thoughts? --Fritzpoll 15:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking for citation

Only when the fired candidates are filmed on their "walk of shame" back to the waiting taxi is the real Amstrad HQ building in Brentwood used.

Can't find a citation for this - just a lot of websites referring to us!! I've therefore dragged it here until someone can source it, at which point we can return it to the text, This should get us through GA, though. --Fritzpoll 21:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I e-mailed Ruth Badger...

After various attempts at trying to get answers out of various different candidates (including Simon and Adam from this current series), I eventually e-mailed Ruth Badger from series two to try and get some citation for our various pieces of unsourced trivia-

“ Dear Mrs. Badger.

I am an editor of The "The Apprentice (UK)" article on the website Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. We are currently trying to find sources on the internet for various Apprentice-related facts and we're wondering if you can help us. We are currently looking for website addresses that support the following facts- 1. Is the "boardroom" actually a studio set, and if so-where is it? 2. Is each "walk of shame" filmed at the beggining of filming? 3. Is the "walk of shame" the only thing to be filmed at AMSTRAD's Brentwood HQ? 4. Did the show's filming really take place over 12 weeks, or was it longer/shorter? 5. What happens after the post-firing taxi ride?

Unfortunately, we can not currently find sufficent sources to back these questions. We need your help.

As Wikipedia only supports official sources, please can you post the questions and answers on your official MySpace or website, possibly under an "FAQ" section. I am very sorry is this causes you annoyance and distress.

Here is the article in question- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apprentice_%28UK%29

Thanks again, I look forward to reply e-mail,

Dale Jenkins

PS. Good luck on your new programme, Badger or Bust.

”

and I had this is reply-

“ Hi Dale,

I'm afraid I am unable to answer your questions due to my confidentiality agreement with Talkback Thames.

I would suggest you contact them as they may give you more information.

Regards

Ruth

”

I'm about to e-mail Ruth back, thanking her for her reply. I'm also about to find an e-mail address for someone at Talkback Thames. My search for the "truth" shall continue! Dalejenkins 14:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have discovered a written address for Talkback Thames, can any one else volenteer to write in. It seems best to enclose a stamped addressed envolope to yourself for a reply letter. Whoever sends it could then scan the letter in and we use that as a source (as it should have an official letterhead).

The address is-

talkbackTHAMES, 20-21 Newman Street, London W1T 1PG.

(Maybe we should out "The Apprentice" or "To whom it may concern, RE The Apprentice" at the top so it's easier-if we're helpful for them, they may be more helpful for us!)

Any one put themselves foreward. If not, I'll have to do it. HAPPY EDITING! Dalejenkins 16:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol, good on you Dale :) Have to say though, I sort of expected you'd get that reply - though also you might like to know that the series 3 candidates' contracts seem to be a lot less restrictive compared to series 2, for whatever reason. Seaserpent85 17:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Guys, sorry to rain on your parade here but a letter of that nature would constitute a primary source which is generally a no-no on Wikipedia. See WP:NOR for further information. Joe King 18:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding (1), I found a reference a day or two ago and added it to the article. It's a Sunday Times interview with Tim Campbell which says: "Not only does Campbell admit that the "boardroom" is a studio and the "receptionist" is an actress..." Doesn't say where the studio is located though... Matt 01:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)