Talk:The Apprentice (British TV series) series 3

message: There's no need to wikilink Sir Alan Sugar subsequent to the first time. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sir Alan

message: All information in here comes from the same website, MSN entertainment. Perhaps the official candidate info from the official site could re-written? I also think including rumours in the bios is unecessary, particularly with sources as notoriously dubious as NOTW. Seaserpent85 11:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, and since it is a word-for-word copy, it is a blatant copyright violation from  and I have thus removed it. Whilst this article may prove a useful source for writing candidate biographies, it can not be copied. Also note that biographies need to be written in an encyclopedic manner, and from a neutral point of view. It should all be attributed to a reliable source.└ UkPaolo/talk┐ 17:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we really need the extra information in the biographies - "Business Development manager for HEWLETT PACKARD", "Salesman for ABBEY CHARTERS", "Car Sales Manager for RENAULT" and "Advertising Sales Manager for ADVERTISING.COM" - aren't all four of those ADVERTISING in themselves and extra information that really isn't needed?  I don't think they can be sourced either.  I'm inclined to delete them.  Any thoughts?? Madmick13 14:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the info comes from the official site candidate interviews. However, I agree there is no need for having them in this article - all biographical info on candidates in a separate article, List of The Apprentice UK candidates.Seaserpent85 15:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Candidate Biographies

message: I'm not a fan of including upcoming episodes (other than a preview of the week ahead) in the challenges list - not only does it leave blanks inbetween but it includes major spoilers. Whilst I appreciate that there is a spoiler tag in place, it seems unfair to include information which would spoil the series for everyone and not just those who had missed the last show. Seaserpent85 00:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think we should delete any references to future episodes and rumours. They don't add anything of any value to the article as the correct information will be included when the tasks have taken place. Jamesb1 16:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also agree, details including Project Manager, Reward for Winning Team etc should only be posted after the programme has aired. pjb007 17:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Upcoming Episodes

message: Damn! I spent ages typing and creating new candidate bios and accidentally pressed back and kinda deleted half of it (i copied the other bit) ---- have it on there tomorrow...
—Preceding unsigned comment added by olz06 (talk • contribs) 
:That sounds brilliant! This means we can get rid of most of the columns in the candidate table. If anyone still thinks we need more info on who was PM in which week etc then we could implement a 'weekly results' table showing who was on which team each week. Seaserpent85 11:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Candidate Bios

message: No offence to anyone, but I think this looks a tad shabby. The codes (eg. PM, S and so on) need a key. The table should also highlight who was called back to the boardroom. We'll also have problems in the final episodes, where there are no team names. Maybe we should take influence from here? Dalejenkins 08:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did state it was only basic. The general gist of it came from the US Apprentice pages - though it is nice to be able to see who was in the boardroom etc. so I've added that as well as the much needed key. The interview stage and final week can just be in another colour, compared to the Big Brother table you linked to, it should be a lot clearer and more straight-forward.Seaserpent85 22:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, stop changing the colours without discussion on here first - it's obvious we don't agree on the situation so there needs to be some external input from other people to resolve it amicably. I'm all for changing the team colours to make them stand out more, but changing the fired colour to such a bright red is distracting and confusing. Seaserpent85 14:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Weekly Results Table!

message: Seaserpent85 and I have come to a disagreement over this issue. I believe that the "fired" colour should look like this-
Candidate	Episode Number	Episode Number	Episode Number	Episode Number	Episode Number	Episode Number	Episode Number	Episode Number	Episode Number	Episode Number	Episode Number	Episode Number	Result
Candidate	1             	2             	3             	4             	5             	6             	7             	8             	9             	10            	11            	12            	Result
Ifti     	              	B             	              	              	              	              	              	              	              	              	              	              	Fired in Week 2
Andy     	PM            	              	              	              	              	              	              	              	              	              	              	              	Fired in Week 1
While Seaserpent85 wants this-
Candidate	Episode Number	Episode Number	Episode Number	Episode Number	Episode Number	Episode Number	Episode Number	Episode Number	Episode Number	Episode Number	Episode Number	Episode Number	Result
Candidate	1             	2             	3             	4             	5             	6             	7             	8             	9             	10            	11            	12            	Result
Ifti     	              	B             	              	              	              	              	              	              	              	              	              	              	Fired in Week 2
Andy     	PM            	              	              	              	              	              	              	              	              	              	              	              	Fired in Week 1
Shall we have a vote to decide who has the best idea? Just put *I SUPPORT <user's name> and explain your reasons. Whoever has the most votes wins. We can't vote for ourselves! Dalejenkins 20:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then, for the time being it seems that the grey is more popular. I definitely agree that it needs to be more user friendly though - any suggestions as to how without making it too confusing? See the tables on the series 1 and 2 pages for how the table looks when completed. If we were to go down the route of adding more colours, we'd need at least 4 more - Stealth PM, Eclipse PM, Stealth in BR and Eclipse in BR - hence my doubts. Any ideas? Seaserpent85 15:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The existing table seems clear and well designed to me. What do you dislike about it? Matt 02:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree - looking at the tables for the previous two series as suggested, it seems we would only require the useual two additional colours for the final two weeks when interviews take place, followed by the one-on-one competition in the final.  Any further colours for PM, B, etc. would be both redundant and cluttering, reducing readability. --Fritzpoll 23:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Weekly Results Table-"Fired" colours

message: There is an error in week 6. The details say that Eclipse made a loss of £225, partly due to excessive spending on marketing, whilst Stealth made a profit of £410. And the winners are shown as being Eclipse. Are the team names in the details wrong or is the team name shown for the winner wrong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pjb007 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good spot, I've just corrected it. Seaserpent85 19:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Week 6 Error. 

message: I've just noticed the box at the top-right of Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK) (listing the candidates). I'm sure something similar could be created for use in this article, with good effect, if anybody has time... └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, that's a lot neater than the current table. I'll see what I can come up with!Seaserpent85 18:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Think it looks fantastic - good job! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template suggestion 

message: In week seven, the new "future" episodes warning is great - I just wanted to say what a good idea I think it is, and well done to whoever set it up.  It completely satisfies the problems stated in "Advance notification" above, in my opinion.  :)  --Fritzpoll 12:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, nice solution └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 13:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <takes bow> I made that template. Thanks guys. Dalejenkins 11:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice one, Dale :) Fritzpoll 15:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New spoiler tag 

message: There are 2 reasons why I've reverted this; firstly it is simply a cut and paste job of the source website, which would need to be rewritten to be acceptable here. Secondly, digital spy source their material from various tabloids such, as is the case here, The Sunday Mirror - if you can find the original story then you may have a valid reference, but the general concensus has been that tabloid rumours don't merit inclusion here. Seaserpent85 12:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've sourced it properly. Dalejenkins 12:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the second part about one member turning him down, since is based on an anonymous source.  The details about four apprentices being kept on are from quotes directly attributed to Sugar, so I think they can remain.  However, comment are always welcome. --Fritzpoll 12:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The full details are, at the end of The Apprentice episode 11, Sir Alan points to his right and says "you're hired".  At the end of The Apprentice You're Fired episode 11, they show a shot of the boardroom with Kristina to Sir Alan's left, and Simon to his right.--Soyeb1234 01:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think the above reasoning is good enough to put results up without confirmation.  There is the possibility that the shot at the end of You're fired was from before the task started, and they sat elsewhere after the task was completed.  I'll remove my changes.--Soyeb1234 01:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is definitely not a reliable source - in the past, the editors have even been known to show the firing shot in mirror image so as not to give anything away. At any rate, SAS's decision is not final until Tuesday at any rate - the 'You're Hired' show is recorded on Tuesday. Seaserpent85 12:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of information on the final

message: I've reverted the recent changes adding the final week teams to the weekly results. There are a couple of reasons - firstly, the addition of yet more colours and letters to the key makes the table completely unreadable. Secondly, the table serves as a guide as to how far each candidate got in the competition, not as a complete breakdown of the series. The final week teams are outlined in the challenges section, and I feel that's all that is needed. Seaserpent85 18:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. People such as Rory said they were coming back. This gives these context and the current place is unclear. LizzieHarrison 19:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Seaserpent85 on this one, I'm afraid.  Tables are intended to clarify, not to confuse.  Extra colours do make things more confusing, and this table is simply intended to highlight who was still in the competition - the inclusion of others is therefore unnecessary. --Fritzpoll 12:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My attempt to fix a simple error - the fact that Simon was colour-coded as "runner-up" - seems to have become confused with this discussion and reverted. However, I see that this has now been remedied by changing the colour legend to "Grand Finale" which is fine by me. Matt 12:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops! Sorry, Matt - there have been a number of unregistered users messing about with the table lately so I didn't realise you were caught up in all that! The table has always had 'grand finale' for the finalists - someone must have changed this and I didn't notice in the first revert. On a side note, we need to sort out getting this whole WikiProject up to scratch now that the series has ended! :) Seaserpent85 13:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries - the factual inaccuracy was my only concern. I should have made it clear in the edit summary that that was why I was changing it. Matt 00:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Additions To Weekly Results 

message: The article states that Stealth had their total reduced to £1,170 as a result of being late. This figure is never mentioned in the episode though; this gives me the impression that £1,300 was in fact the figure left over after their deduction, meaning that their original takings would have been actually £1,440. Anyone agree with this? --217.43.78.242 23:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stealth's Week 9 total 

message: Good work on the article, however there are a few issues which must be resolved prior to promoting this article:
# Firstly, the lead needs quite a bit of work. As it stands now, it is far too short and not representative of the rest of the article. I would suggest that its length be doubled and that information about candidates other than Simon be mentioned (in particular Kristina and Katie, who were very high profile candidates). Some information about the one-off specials should be included, along with some mention of the controversies. Also, the lead does not need footnotes as long as the information is also located in the main body of the article. I would recommend removing some of the footnotes from the lead.
# I think that what's been written is quite good, but I think that as it is an article focused on Series three, that some mention should be made of some of the differences between this series and the prior two. One that comes to the top of my head is that they performed one task in France, the first time a task has been done outside of the UK on land (there was that cruise task from series 2, but it was wasn't on land).
# I also think that some mention should be made of the relationship between Katie and Paul, another first for the series. The controversy about Katie's past relationships also merits a mention.
# Some mention should also be made about what the high profile candidates are doing now. For example, while it is mentioned that Simon won, I don't see anything that says what kind of job he was offered in the Amstrad companies. Also of note is that Kristina was offered a job with Alan after the show aired, and that Katie was fired from her job as a result of the negative publicity she received.
I would suggest thinking about what I have suggested and changing the article accordingly. Because the article is good in nearly every other way (concerning the GA criteria), I will put it on hold in hope that some changes be made to bring the article up to par. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask me. Zeus1234 04:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: Shouldn't Paul's name read Lt Paul? Because British army officers keep their ranks when they retire (for example, Paul's name wouldn't be done as Mr Paul its done as Lt Paul) The C of E (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lietenants 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Apprentice (UK series three). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070820154632/http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk:80/apprentice/news_260407_natalie.shtml to http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/apprentice/news_260407_natalie.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The Apprentice (UK series three). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927223100/http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/primetime/the_apprentice/news/1113 to http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/primetime/the_apprentice/news/1113
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714084615/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/showbiz/article-23394836-details/Apprentice+show+flirting+'robbed+me+of+my+chance'/article.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23394836-details/Apprentice+show+flirting+'robbed+me+of+my+chance'/article.do
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070910194227/http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk:80/celeb_news/Apprentice_star_Katie_Hopkins_flirting_angers_Sir_Alan_article_116647.html to http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/celeb_news/Apprentice_star_Katie_Hopkins_flirting_angers_Sir_Alan_article_116647.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The Apprentice (UK series three). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23394836-details/Apprentice%2Bshow%2Bflirting%2B%27robbed%2Bme%2Bof%2Bmy%2Bchance%27/article.do
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/celeb_news/Apprentice_star_Katie_Hopkins_flirting_angers_Sir_Alan_article_116647.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070625120334/http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/features/display.var.1456687.0.0.php to http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/features/display.var.1456687.0.0.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Apprentice (UK series three). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715001820/http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=928672007 to http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=928672007
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926234425/http://www.24dash.com/showbiz_slapdash/20275.htm to http://www.24dash.com/showbiz_slapdash/20275.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Where have the episode descriptions come from? They read like advertising lines, i.e.  is far more aimed at persuading someone to watch rather than telling them anything that happened (which team? what choice? what kennels?). The recent change has made the article vastly less useful for the readers, IMO. OZOO (t) (c) 20:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If you prefer the old one, feel free to put it back, only for it to be reverted. A discussion on a AfD for this article and several linked to it determined there was too much information given, most of which were Original Research, which Wikipedia frowns on. The information had to be removed and the Episode section remade as it is to combat this problem. GUtt01 (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode descriptions