Talk:The Apprentice (British TV series) series 4

Writing guidelines Whilst the series is ongoing the following guidelines about including material should be remembered: Since the results of episodes are not known in advance, there is no verifiable material about outcomes until the episode airs. Material on winners and people who have been fired is therefore speculative and violates WP:V Consider whether material really belongs here. For example, if there are personal scandals relating to participants, is the material directly related to The Apprentice, or shoulod it go with their bio information? Is it even worth including?

(stretches fingers and gets ready for typing) Here we go again...

I see a new series dawns on us. Nice for the project to have something to do. Are there any guidelines we should establish on references, on table colours or anything like that before we get going? Also, nice to be back!  :) Fritzpoll (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't believe it's been a year already! Very nice to see you back here, fingers crossed this year will go as "smoothly" as last time. I think we definitely need a few "ground rules", just to put on the top of this talk page - might be a good way fo avoiding all the monotonous edit wars that went on last year. The main things we need to agree on are the addition of "spoilers", standards across all series pages and agreeing on a set colour scheme for the table (I'd be quite happy for it to stay the same as the previous three series). Whaddya think? :) Seaserpent⁸⁵ 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, so the ideas I remember from series 3 are:

• Spoilers may only go in after the episode has aired
• Fixed colour scheme for the tables
• Limiting the amount of tabloid bumpf that goes in here until it has received multiple independent writeups in reliable sources

Is that all of them? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's already started - had to revert an IP adding details of who won the first week yesterday Fritzpoll (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry chaps, this "spoiler protection" is not allowed on Wikipedia; see WP:SW. Kidburla (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not "spoiler protection", it's the addition of unverified material. If you actually look at the article, you will see that there are already "spoilers" in there, fully attributed to a reliable source. I for one will continue to revert any unsourced material, this in an encyclopedia after all, not a fan page. Seaserpent⁸⁵ 13:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it isn't an effort to subvert essays. Material being removed is remvoed because it fails verifiability Fritzpoll (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I am not keen on "significant" spoilers that sneak up on you unawares. If I come to ... erm ... move some commas around in the description of one week's episode, then I certainly don't want to be reading who's getting fired next week. OTOH, reading what the task's going to be, for example, is no big deal. So, spoilers going in only after the episode has aired sounds good to me (in which case they're no longer "spoilers", I guess!). Matt 01:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.46.159 (talk)

Outdented reply - Technically, there should never be time where it is justified to have the name of who gets fired before an episode airs. The information is embargoed until the episode airs, hence there won't be any sources to verify such additions until after it screens. I think we should have some guideline at the top of this page, as if it's anything like last year there'll be plenty of disagreements about trivial things. Seaserpent⁸⁵ 11:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done a couple in an infobox. Feel free to add/amend Fritzpoll (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Weekly results table

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)

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)

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)

Fair enough, point taken. Btw, I wasn't making reference to your changes δ²_(Talk) 18:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate bios

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)

Nice! And yes, brief paragraphs. I'll have to look into what sources to use Fritzpoll (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

High Def

Will this series be in HD?Olz06 20:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced information

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)

I have been doing similar, and I notice that the article is now semi-protected. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

I've similarly requested semi-protection on the list of candidates because of the vandalism issues Fritzpoll (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

"The one that got away"

I think "the one that got away" should be added as part of the "Challenges" section. The designation is awarded, essentially, to the person who would have been next-in-line to be fired. Therefore, I think it is notable. The source is also official as it comes directly from the spin-off show The Apprentice: You're Fired. I added the information to the main page but it was almost immediately reverted, apparently because the user felt that the information was too minor to be featured in the article. I disagree, for the above stated reasons. I feel it would be interesting for someone reading the article to recall who received this designation. Kidburla (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

But since it is not something that appears within the program, nor is it an 'official' designation, say, from within the show, it certainly shouldn't be included here. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is official. It is sanctioned by an authorised spin-off program. This is not like a YouTube blog or a fan website. This is part of the series four franchise. If you disagree with that, then we shouldn't have a link at all to the AYF article. But I'm sure you wouldn't want to go that far. (Incidentally, I am not alone in this belief; it can be seen from the edit history that User:86.4.175.44 also tried to add "one that got away" information to the page, albeit in a slightly different form). Kidburla (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the IP change because their edit didn't seem to flow with the table or its key. I'm not sure who reverted you, but possibly SeaSerpent. I recall (though you'd have to check) that we included episode summaries. If you can write one of those, and include this information, with an appropriate {{cite episode}} citation, I don't see a problem Fritzpoll (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

But it's not relevant to the article at hand, this is about the fourth series and not about the spin-off. The feature is in no way related to the outcome of the show, nor does it indicate who would likely have been the next-in-line to be fired. There are a lot of trivial things that you could potentially put in the article, but this is an encyclopedia after all. Seaserpent⁸⁵ 23:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the above Fritzpoll (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Same teams

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hopefully my edit of the episode grid is adequate? many thanks Deltasquared (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes

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)chapati_monsta

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)

Duly noted - didn't read closely enough.213.235.27.177 (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)chapati_monsta

Weekly Results Table

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Weekly protection

I'm severely tempted to semi-protect this article during every episode :( Stifle (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? I can understand that some people do post spoilers, but it's good to be able to update the article with information as soon as it happens (e.g. PMs, winners, etc.) as it saves time later. Ixistant (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ixistant. Kidburla (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not the spoilers themselves, per se, but the incessant attempts to include unsourced information in advance of the show, or during the show. The best source is going to be the episode itself, and anything else is going to struggle to meet the verifiability requirements Fritzpoll (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Week 4 - Teams

From the released clips of Week 4, it is fairly obvious that Simon is one of the team leaders. One clip shows him asking Alex to be his second-in-command. The teams are (from looking at the boardroom scenes contained in the "preview" section of this week's episode) Michael/Simon/Alex/Jenny/Claire/Sara and Helene/Lindi/Jennifer/Lucinda/Lee/Raef/Kevin. However it is not clear which team is which. Since the second of these two contains more girls, it would be a fair assumption that this team is "Alpha" and the team led by Simon is "Renaissance". But it is probably not clear enough to be put into the article. Kidburla (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that Lee has been added as the PM and his team is marked as "Alpha" - what is the source for this? Kidburla (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Now teams have been marked and listed in the weekly article. If no one can provide a source for this information, I will remove it. Kidburla (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just seen BBC Apprentice e-mail, which seems to suggest PMs are Simon and Helene?? User:chapati_monsta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.235.27.177 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the BBC have now confirmed that the PMs are Simon and Helene. However, we still don't know which team is which and no one has provided a source for this, so I will change the article accordingly. Kidburla (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Challenges

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)

Yep, I agree and have removed all the blank weeks everytime they've been added. Seaserpent⁸⁵ 08:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Rewards

Is it me, or are the rewards un-equally given? I mean for example, this week a boat trip to the isle of wight on a luxury yacht. big woo. i can do the same by taking the red funnel wight link ferry from southampton! hmmm, for example:

• Week 8 of series one: A trip to Monaco, using the profits from the task as gambling money in the casino.
• Week 5 of series two: Champagne reception and front-row seats at the London Fashion Show.
• Week 9 of series three: A £500 voucher to spend, with the aid of a personal shopper, at Selfridges.

so what gives? budget restrictions? δ²_{(Talk to me!)} 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Week 6 - Teams

Michael is certainly the project manager this week and it also appears that he has been switched to Alpha (for one reason or another). The candidates who haven't been a manager are given priority (except for Claire, which was Alan Sugar's own decision) and as of this date, Michael, Jenny M and Kevin have not led a team. As Jenny will be on the same team as Michael, it is safe to assume that Kevin will lead Renaissance. I'm guessing he wanted to see both Michael and Kevin in action as they have generally stayed in the background up until now, which is why one of them has had to change teams. 92.236.140.63 (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Safe to assume" does not mean verified,a nd probably constitutes [{WP:OR|original research]]. If people want to include this info, it needs a source. In fact, this is what it says when you edit the section, and at the top of this talk page Fritzpoll (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't include it if you're not happy, but I gleaned the info about Michael and Alpha from the official website and logically - by process of elimination (Kevin is the only person in Renaissance who hasn't been manager and, as I stated above, those who haven't been in charge are given priority over others) - Kevin Shaw will be leading Renaissance. 92.236.140.63 (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, inclusion is not a "decision" that only I can make. If you got the info on Michael from a website, provide a reference, and put it back in (see WP:V and WP:RS). Logical deduction is, unfortunately, still original research and you can't include it. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

References for Weekly epiosodes

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:

Main page: WP:PROVEIT

"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)

• I completely agree. People are beginning to lose the plot when it comes to citing things that are common knowledge. Before long, we'll have to reference things such as 'The sky is blue'. 92.236.140.63 (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• It's not that people are "losing the plot". Sometimes details, such as the nature of the task, are added before an episode airs, in which case a reference is needed. Then when the episode airs the references tend to just remain in place. If you want to delete references that are now redundant that's fine by me. Matt 11:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)