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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What do these references mean? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 ). Good job with adding references, by the way! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HELP!

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Seasons section

message: 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)
thread_title: Series 4

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism and controversy: too trivial? 

message: 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)
thread_title: List of Candidates

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I personally quite like the inclusion of  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)
thread_title: Random Template

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Spoiler necessary? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  and subsequent citations could be  and yet again . 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)

text: PS - good job with the rewrite! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 23:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that UkPaolo!  --Fritzpoll 23:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism and Controversy - reference error 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism and Controversy - The Apprentice: You're fired 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, that was my thinking └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 23:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: My preference is The Apprentice is modelled on the US series of the same name Dalejenkins 23:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would seem a reasonable compromise (albeit a bit of a long link!) └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 23:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed - it's good to see talk page discussion about proposed changes :o) └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 08:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Intro link 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hmm, that's a fair point - I would agree that the source is inadequate... └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 08:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slightly inadequate reference? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Explanation for revert 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of more "criticism" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd agree with you on those points. There is a  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)
thread_title:  Youtube references 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Have just found the tracklisting for the soundtrack - see . 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)
thread_title: Music

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Missed this before I nominated it.....fortunately there's a backlog, so if we work quickly... :) --Fritzpoll 17:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Nice one - a good, worthwhile, and boring job well done. Good luck with the exams! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: Brother USA seems to get away with digits. Dalejenkins 14:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Series pages 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "The Apprentice" cf. "The Apprentice UK" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Positive Reception 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Looking for citation