Talk:The Apprentice (British TV series) series 11

Too Bloggy?!

Can we keep the episode synopsis factual there is a lot of detail that is purely not needed. It does read a tad like a blog. Thank you NaThang0P (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

To add to this, each successive episode seems to get more and more content, need to be careful to avoid meaningless bloat and show gossip. Eeveeman (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Dates being Used, and Weekly Results Tables

Two things to make note of here:

1. Had to remove the first table in the Weekly Results section. The table after it, labelled "Elimination Chart" is easier to understand and read than the one before it, which not only duplicated this info but also denoted which team a candidate was in for each week and the record for them as a PM. For the latter, it seemed irrelevant, because if a candidate was fired without being a PM, why should they have this table section associated to them? And surely, the Episode Section does enough to state who was in which team for that week, right?
2. Dates in the Candidate Section for when they were fired/runner-up/winner, aren't really needed to be put in there. That's because one can simply look to the Episode Section and check the air date corresponding to the episode that result is associated to.

Have cleaned up previous series with these issues. GUtt01 (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Week 3, is it worth detailing each item?

I've been editing a lot of the task notes for Task 3, and despite missing out some of the items from both teams, it's still pretty long, and I daresay that I don't want to put any more in lest it become absolutely massive. Might even cut it down a bit. Is it worth detailing each item's success/failure on both teams? Taking inspiration from Task 9 of the previous series tells me that there's already far too much detail, a lot of which I've created!... Eeveeman (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Not every item has to be done in Notes; only ones that garner significant right to be noted in, like the flutes, the cheese, the boat fiasco, and such like. But the notes section should hold only notable things - comments by Sugar and Adviser, bizarre things done, issues between candidates, and so forth - that are worth putting in. Anything minor is not worth it. GUtt01 (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

To the Unsigned Editor - This show does not involve mentoring of any kind

This is a message to the editor who feels that the show has candidates being mentored by Lord Sugar and his Aides. While yes, the candidates earn experience from each task and advice on what they should do better if fired, there is no evidence as such to prove that the candidates are separated into three groups (Boys, Girls, Over 28s) and mentored by Lord Sugar, Claude and Karren, anywhere in this show's history. I have checked your edits, and I think somehow you are confusing the show with another program (like X-Factor). Please kindly understand that Lord Sugar is described by the show as "The Boss", who is responsible for evaluating and deciding on which candidates go in each episode, while his aides, Karren and Claude, are observers who monitor their respective team and provide feedback to Sugar of what they saw in terms of performances, good points, bad points, and issues within a team.

To other editors, we must remember to always check our information is backed up with proof as such, to show that it is correct. If you interested to know what exactly this Talk Topic is about, check Series Eleven editing history, and the edits of unsigned editors, to find the one that this topic refers to. And should I have done wrong with this Talk Topic, apologies in advance, but just wishing that this person realises they are mistaken in editing with such false information. GUtt01 (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding in Information Before an Episode is Broadcast

I've just had to edit the weekly results and remove all result information for Week 6 that someone put in because both the Episode has not been broadcast, while they have not put up any proof about this at all in their reasoning (I assume they seek to spoil it for those who are watching the current series and wondering who's going after that week). Can we please not include information about the result of a week, along with team setups and the panel for You're Fired for that week, until the episode has been broadcast?

For the time being, all results must not be included for a candidate until it can be proven or the episode has been broadcast. Team setups also must not be included in, because teasers of an episode may not show if Lord Sugar changed teams around before they begun a task. And the You're Fired panel does get confirmed to be as such at the end of the current broadcast episode of the Discussion show, but we shouldn't include it in as it might have a last-minute change. GUtt01 (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads-up - Information that can be put in for Week 11 can consist of the candidates who have made it through and the interviewers for that stage, but other information, including who is fired, shouldn't be added in until after that episode's broadcast. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic site, not a spoiler site. GUtt01 (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Selina's performance attracting issues in this Article

It's come to my attention that a number of unsigned editors are making changes and additions in regards to Selina, which appears to be vandalising the article and/or have no evidence whatsoever to what is known. To those doing this, cease and desist immediately as such actions like this are not tolerated by the site, nor is putting in your opinion of this candidate allowed!! This article is supposed to be encyclopaedic in terms of information and any action that is slanderous, biased, and in the act of a 'troll' ruins it for those who work hard to contribute to an article that is mostly about the series, not on an individual candidate only.

To those who read this and have not done such a thing, I urge you to protect this article by undoing any such edits that are made. Please, protect this article from vandal/trolling editors. GUtt01 (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Candidates Colour Box Missing?

What has happened to the Colour Box next to when they left the show. Can this be fixed?

A user made a change to the template which hasn't worked, so I've undid the change for now and will look into why it happened Eeveeman (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eeveeman: Just out of curiosity, did you include the infobox of Candidates from the article to this Talk subject, by accident? GUtt01 (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

No idea why it's here, I think it was the original poster that included it. No real need for it either, deleted! Eeveeman (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Weekly Result Colour Scheme

Someone decided to edit the colour scheme on the Weekly Results to colours that made it quite sharp and very awful. What was wrong with the scheme as it is? Whoever did so, then tried to put it onto a couple of the articles for previous series, but they have since been restored to how they were. GUtt01 (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a head's up. It seems someone tried to edit the Elimination Chart once again, by trying to alter the colour scheme slightly with candidate, Mergim, and putting forward a section for him as this -> "The candidate was sub team leader and was brought in as project manager." Please understand that if you want to try out a new colour scheme, please trying using Wikipedia:Sandbox or your own if you have an account with this site, rather than making experimental changes here or in any other Wiki-Article. GUtt01 (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Theatre featured in Week 6

Does anyone here know which Theatre Royal was featured in Week 6's task? I found a reference that mentioned the theatre's name, but cannot work out if which one it is as such. Tried to search Wikipedia, but there are quite a few theatres with that name in London. GUtt01 (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks to me like the Theatre Royal Stratford East? Eeveeman (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Until we get a 100% positive certainty that it is, I can't really add it into that week's task as the location visited for the other major contract that was worked on. GUtt01 (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Found something so I've chucked it in Eeveeman (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Scott's Departure, according to "The Sun"

While The Sun has reported that the candidate, Scott Saunders, has departed from the show, if a bit prematurely before the broadcast of an episode that proves it, there is not any confirmation he has left in Week 9; for all that is known, his departure might have been in Week 10. If you are reading this, please read any articles that refer to this news story, as the newspaper giant did state to expect it in the "coming weeks" but didn't specify an exact date as such. Until an episode is broadcast that shows his sudden departure, please do not make changes to Weekly Results and the Candidate section, saying he has left in Week 9. Any attempt to do so without proper confirmation by the show itself, will be reverted.

I would like to point out, that the Controversy section that contains information in regards to Scott's behaviour on the show, does include info on this matter, but it will remain in Hidden Text under the same reason. GUtt01 (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Matter resolved now, owing to the latest episode broadcast. GUtt01 (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Interviewer Identities

Week 11's interviewers need to be known as soon as possible. I can make out Littner is still one, so maybe someone can check to see who else is involved and which series it was where an aide worked as an interviewer last (I think it was Series 1, but unsure). GUtt01 (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

"Due to the 2015 General Election being held in Spring, which Lord Sugar has ties with"

Genuinely don't understand. What are Lord Sugar's ties with Spring (or spring)? What does this mean?2.101.21.2 (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand - He had ties to the 2015 General Election, not the season... GUtt01 (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

David Stevenson Controversy

I keep looking at this in the Controversy Section, and I just wonder... What exactly is the controversy in this? It seems to have no impact on the show itself...GUtt01 (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)