Talk:The Apprentice (British TV series) series 4

message: I've rejigged our existing table into a tidier, more toned down version - and wikilinked relevent headings, should be a lot more user friendly. Just to give you an idea, take a look at how the third series' table would look here. Let me know if anything could do with being changed, of course :) Seaserpent85 17:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: dear god, why are people insistent on jumping the gun and trying to put in tenuous information? impatience? surely it is best to wait until next week to update info about next week? as of today, it still cannot be confirmed/verified what teams everyone is on, and yet the team colours have been re-allocated. please can this be removed, as i already did that this week! Deltasquared 02:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally I'd agree, however this is verifiable - look at refs 16 and 17, both make mention of a boys' team and a girls' team. Also the preview clips at the end of the show last week show that the teams are split by gender again. No matter how hard you try, this info will get added - you can't stop people adding to a wiki (a few of us experienced that throughout the last series). In the end it doesn't matter when the information goes in, as long as it's verifiable... in the end all these disputes are irrelevant when it comes to the end of the series and we have to do all the tidying up. Seaserpent85 11:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, point taken. Btw, I wasn't making reference to your changes δ²(Talk) 18:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weekly results table 

message: At the moment all mentions of candidates are directed towards the relevant sections of List of The Apprentice candidates (UK), which are empty. I think one of the first things that needs doing is adding a bried paragraph about each, rewritten from the numerous sources available. On a side note, look at the huge numbers of views this article is getting at the moment, it's growing each day! Seaserpent85 18:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice!  And yes, brief paragraphs.  I'll have to look into what sources to use Fritzpoll (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidate bios 

message: The continued addition of Alex as PM is not verifiable, hence I've been reverting it. Whilst it may be the case that he is, nothing in the bbc website video states he is. I've nothing against spoilers as long as they are verifiable. Seaserpent85 13:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been doing similar, and I notice that the article is now semi-protected. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I requested semi-protection earlier - will expire at 10.30pm, by which point we should already have a decent version in place. Seaserpent85 18:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've similarly requested semi-protection on the list of candidates because of the vandalism issues Fritzpoll (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've semi-protected the page until after The Apprentice: You're Fired! tonight. Also, it's verifiable that Alex is PM now... Stifle (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of unsourced information 

message: I notice from the episode grid that we are assuming no one is going to change teams in week 2. What is the source for this information? Kidburla (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: not guilty of making the edit, but SAS indicated that the teams were to be split boy/girl, and whoever has made this edit clearly assumes this will be perpetuated.  Tat said, it seems to be an unverified edit and should probably be reverted.  As I'm off to bed now, feel free to do it yourself :)  Fritzpoll (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The preview clips at the end of the episode and at the end of You're Fired show the team splits. However, one could argue that it's not explicit in that fact... so feel free to remove the information if you can't find an appropriate source for it. Seaserpent85 23:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem picky...but I guess that, as verifiability is going to be our watchword every Wednesday for the next few months.... Fritzpoll (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully my edit of the episode grid is adequate? many thanks Deltasquared (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same teams 

message: It seems there has been some vandalism on the footnotes - both 8 and 9 seem to have nothing to do with the show?213.235.27.177 (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They both mention The Apprentice if you look carefully at them. Granted, number 8 is slightly irrelevant now the series has started. However, number 8 states that there is an advertising task in week 8, with the owner of the website acting as a panellist. Seaserpent85 12:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: I think that the table showing the weekly results should be changed to look the the one on the Apprentice USA page as I think it looks much better than the UK table. Does anyone agree?? --Mikey-is-lost (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I think the one we have here looks much cleaner - I'm basing that on the weekly results for the first US series.  There is so much clutter in that one that I can't make head nor tail of it, whereas I can see quite clearly with this one what is happenign from week to week Fritzpoll (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yehh...I suppose you have a point. its just the kind of like letters that reely get on my nerves and the colour for a certain team. cos in the usa one it has the team name --Mikey-is-lost (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fair point - up to personal taste, I suppose - let's see if anyone else supports your change. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked at the USA one and I much prefer the one we have at the moment, theirs is too confusing. Kidburla (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Weekly Results Table

message: The challenges section has all the weeks displayed and currently most of them just say "unknown".  I think this is just pointless having this on the page as it has no purpose and it does not tell anyone any information. Does anyone think the same??? --Mikey-is-lost (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I agree and have removed all the blank weeks everytime they've been added. Seaserpent85 08:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenges 

message: Just a thought, are references/citatations really needed for these? the reason I ask is because currently the references used are from Radio Times and these are likely to go dead very quickly. Also, if the episode has been viewed, then surely there is no reason to cite souces for the information? as per: 
"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."
Seeing as episodes of TV series can be easily verified by watching the episode in question, I see no reason to have these citations. What does anyone else think? I am considering removing them. Many thanks
δ²(Talk) 16:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the task descriptions we have at the moment are OK in terms of length, but we probably don't want them to get too much longer. Matt 00:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

text: True Fritzpol, I take the point about referencing before the episode has aired; I was questioning the validity of their presence after the episode had aired, seeing as no one else had removed them. Just thought I'd help :-)δ²(Talk) 17:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, once the episode has aired, I absolutely agree!  :)  Fritzpoll (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References for Weekly epiosodes 

message: I have now fully updated all four series of the Apprentice UK (One; Two;  Three; Four), and have standardised the formatting. This was be cause there seemed to be a mixture of formatting across the series, with Series One and Four being most similar. I thought for everyone's information I would list the format below, enabling clearer article editing. Please remember punctuation is extremely important, especially full stops at the end of sentences! 
The Challenges format:
*Project managers: List of team leaders, in alpha order of team names; i.e. Alpha then Renaissance. 
*Task:  Brief summary of task.
*Result: Abstract summary of task events and the performance of both teams.
*Winner: Name of winning team.
*Reward: Brief description of reward given.
*Brought into the boardroom: List of eligible candidates, starting with team leader of losing team, then alpha order of other candidates.
*Who gets fired: Candidate name, followed by brief reason.
*Notes: Space for any extra information that does not fall into above categories. However, this is not carte blanche for trivia!
Just to explain, alpha order is used to ensure neutral POV, and a set of standard formatting also ensures this. Previous series had biased POV's inserted where there was no previous structure. Weeks 11 and 12 have slightly different formatting, but I shall get to that when the time comes. δ²(Talk) 20:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is good work, thanks for doing this.  Seaserpent and I have been talking about trying to have a big push to drive all the series articles up to a uniform GA status and this will certainly help.  How do you feel about a big push, either now or once series four is over? Fritzpoll (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, yep, I'm definitely up for a push once the series has completed. You will have to guide me though on what constitutes a GA status for articles though please! δ²(Talk) 08:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe - yeah, I wasn't sure to start with either.  We'll talk about this in a few weeks. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format of Apprentice series articles 

message: Are those 'titles' ('Foul play afoot', etc.) the actual official titles for the episodes or have people just coined them themselves?Stephen Shaw (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've brought up the issue of these before - they aren't official episode names, they are the titles of each recap on the official website. I think the issues arises from the fact that Series One had official episode title names, whereas the following three series haven't. I think we need to establish some sort of standard for these as it looks a bit messy at the moment. Seaserpent85 14:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From an official point of view, there is no name for any of the series episodes, with the exception of Series One. Therefore I am inclined to remove the names once the series is over, and a consensus agreed upon before doing anything else. δ²(Talk) 09:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I'd go along with that. Series Two looks a lot less messy without the title names. Seaserpent85 11:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed my mind, and decided to clear up all the series to ensure standard formatting. I have gone over them with a fine tooth comb now, and I think I am right in saying that formatting is complete for now. anyone else care to comment/express their views? Regards, δ²(Talk) 20:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode titles 

message: The edit here removed quite a lot of information that the editor thought was "unnecessary", apparently without any discussion. I support the idea that the episode descriptions should not become too overblown, but there are some parts that I think should be reinstated. What we should be aiming to do is give a brief synopsis of the key features of each episode. This includes the reaction in the boardroom. To give one example, the fallout over the fact that no-one knew the meaning of "kosher" (now removed) was, in my view, very much a key feature of that episode. Is everyone else happy about all these deletions? Matt 86.133.48.195 (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the changes Seaserpant has made are by and large helpful to the article. From a quick cursory glance, Week 7 and Week 8 changes may need tweaking. I can see where your point of view is coming from, although you should always assume good faith of other wiki users, especially Seaserpant. There are a dedicated band of users that are trying to improve all the Apprentice articles in line with the aims of the wiki project and to gain "Good Article" status. I think that some information can be re-instated but the majority seems to be well judged edits. Many thanks, δ²(Talk) 03:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies if my edit seemed a bit over the top - the intention was actually to give some consistency to the article and remove the large amounts of POV that were present in the synopses. There was also a lot of irrelevant information plonked in "Notes" sections for almost every episode - though I agree I've probably been a bit overzealous with weeks 7 and 8 in particular. I have no problem with the readdition of any parts you guys feel were unfairly removed by myself :) Seaserpent85 10:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of information 

message: In the episode, SAS clearly says that Jennifer Maguire was picking up on what he was saying and changing her tune to match.  She was changing her answers "yes I knew he was Jewish", "no I didn't know" etc. This is the reason he fires her. At no time does he say it's because of her attempted sabotage. I'm sure it was factored into the decision but in the episode we don't see that at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.123.113.87 (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasons for firing also are summarised from the follow on program, "You're Fired", in which SAS does state the sabotage as a reason for dismissal. Many thanks, δ²(Talk) 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, accepted but is this article about "The Apprentice Season 4" or "The Apprentice Season 4 and all associated media stories" ? I mean, what if SAS is quoted by The Sun saying another reason...? Shouldn't you go by what was in the actual series ? I know the whole thing is edited, re-edited, condensed and summarised, etc. From my POV it seems that it was the media that decided it was due to the "sabotage" (which I think is a poor choice of words, for bribery); I haven't seen the You're Fired show.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.123.113.87 (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

text: You are of course entitled to your own POV, but the article must portray NPOV. The spin off program "You're Fired" is simply being used here as a reference to the facts. A lot of the information contained with articles will be referenced from places you haven't necessarily seen; this doesn't mean it should be discounted just because you yourself haven't seen the context of the reference. If you see what I mean. In summary, the article is written to be balanced and impartial, using multiple sources of reference, and in this instance, the reasons for the firing have been correctly ascertained. Many thanks, δ²(Talk) 22:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't explain myself very well. I just wanted to clarify the scope of the article - the correct reason for firing may be due to the sabotage but to a person who has not seen the You're Fired show this would be the wrong conclusion. So basically the scope is the main show plus what, any show the BBC make related to TA ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.54.130.68 (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be missing the point somewhat, though the short answer is a cautious yes. This is only because the article is using other sources of information to support it. Otherwise the answer is an emphatic no. The article is not to be a diary account of current events, as per WP:NOT, and so this particular article (like any other article on a television series) is not sought to simply be an episode summary. I do understand where you are coming from, however I hope that you can now understand why the article is written in this way? Many thanks, δ²(Talk) 03:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I just watched You're Fired on YouTube http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sk-rJJFYTCU, at 4:30 SAS says "She tried to place blame on others... and wasn't consistent... that's why I fired her". Nothing about sabotage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.54.130.227 (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

text: In that case, would you prefer the term "bribery", as used in the episode? Interestingly enough, if you type "apprentice sabotage" into YouTube, the first item is a direct link to a clip from the BBC themselves, who refer to the event as "sabotage", here. Many thanks, δ²(Talk) 02:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose that unless you can find some clip that shows SAS saying she was fired for sabotage/bribery then the article should be changed. If you do find such a clip, then the word(s) that SAS used should be used in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.123.113.87 (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Week 7 Double Firing 

message: I have included the ratings for Series 4 from the BARB website. I will cite the source on the article but I don't know how to. Just thought I'd let you all know. 86.134.230.47 (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ratings

message: Given that this is an article about a UK television show is there any reason why a US date format has been adopted within the Candidates table? I imagine that this page is primarily of interest to British people and that a British date format would therefore be more logical and probably clearer for the intended readers of this page.
MrDannyDoodah (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  US date format?