Talk:The Apprentice (UK)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV This is a talk page for discussion of the article about The Apprentice (UK). It is not for discussion about the program itself, unless that discussion involves improving the article. In particular, it is not for discussion about whether or not The Apprentice (UK) is a "good" or "bad" program; or finding out what "this and that" are; or what will happen after "something".

Please see "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and "Wikiquette" for information about the proper use of talk pages.
This is not a forum for general discussion of The Apprentice, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Featured article star The Apprentice (UK) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    Archive
    Archives
    1, 2


    Contents

    [edit] Where to from here?

    Well, I think we all deserve a pat on the back for the GA status - certainly the "corrections" phase took some rapid effort on all our parts. The question is, apart from the periodic updates as new info comes to light, what do we do with the article now? I think it would be safe to say that Dale would like to get it up to Featured Status, and so for convenience of the discussion, the criteria are at WP:FACR.

    I think the article will meet the criteria for 1(d), 1(e). We can probably only meet 1(b) (comprehensive article) once we can include more information about the music of the show, but there are probably several other things, including pinning down some of the uncited material that we removed to get through GA. It might be worth having someone neutral check our references as well to guanrantee that they meet the "reliability tag". I also think the lead section might have to be expanded slightly to satisfy 2(b). So really the question is, what now? Or do we move on to the other articles in the project and try to get everything uniformly up to GA status?

    Discuss.  :) --Fritzpoll 21:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    First off a big 'well done' to everyone involved in getting the article up to GA - Dale, UkPaolo, Fritzpoll and Matt (I know you're out there somewhere!).
    On the note of what to do now - I'm particularly keen to get the rest of the project up to scratch. Here's how I see the various articles in the project and what needs doing:
    • Series One:
      • Referencing - Only has 3 (poor) references at present.
      • Removal of trivia section - Unfortunately a lot of it looks unsourceable.
      • Inclusion of reception section - Enough info still about to create this section.
    • Series Two:
      • Referencing - Only 2 references at present.
      • Inclusion of reception section.
    • Series Three:
      • My view is that it would probably be best to wait until the series ends to do the major work needed.
      • Criticism & controversy needs to be under a reception heading and needs a rewrite, very messy at present.
    • List of Candidates:
      • Rewrites of Series Two & Three candidates needed, with relating referencing.
      • Candidate dates of birth are much needed.
      • The lead needs writing - outlining article and comparing series.
    • You're Fired!:
      • Needs rewrite - article is messy.
    I'm not so sure? I made some minor changes to this a while ago, and have just made a couple more tiny tweaks. Though no doubt more could be added, what's actually there doesn't strike me as particularly messy - not so much as to need a complete rewrite anyway. Matt 01:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Maybe include a section on notable former guests
    • Comic Relief Does The Apprentice:
      • Candidates section may need expanding into a brief description of each candidate, with their background and how well they did on the show.
    Whilst it would be nice to see the main article as FA, I feel it'd be easier to raise the project up from the bottom and have some sort of uniformity. If we are talking about what needs doing ASAP, I'd say it's the Series 3 candidate bios - they're awfully messy and yet probably being viewed more now than they'll ever be. Seaserpent85 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    I think getting the rest of the project up to GA would be a good start. Plus it would mean that Series 3 can come to an end, and we can then round off the main article based on what we know from that series. This would mean that we can concentrate on improving what's there without worrying about additional info coming in --Fritzpoll 23:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    HORRAY! GA STATUS! I'll add a link to this from the wikiproject page. Dalejenkins 06:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Adam answers...

    Finally, Adam Hosker has replied to my messages left on Digital Spy! Although, this is what I asked [1], this is the reply I recieved [2], and this is another forum member's reaction [3]. Although he doesn't officially confirm the answers (although, the "wink" emoticon says it all) and the fact that it took place on an internet forum, would there be a tiny grain of hope that this could be used as a source? Dalejenkins 08:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

    No. To put it bluntly. There's no chance that this can be classed a good or featured article, if it cites that as a source, I'm afraid - although I admire your determination in trying. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 15:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Reception Headings and my recent edits

    Is it just me, or is there nothing controversial listed under "criticism and controversy"? Do we also need a sub-heading for the positive stuff, or do we really need the subheading that is there?

    I've also removed two of the external links, both since they weren't useful and went against the guidelines of WP:EXTERNAL. I would like someone to tell me if the "Times Online" link should be removed as well, since I'm not sure it is something that is related to the article that can't be included elsewhere. Cheers, --Fritzpoll 17:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

    • I think you're right on the first point. Maybe we could add a sub-heading Praise at the start, and change Criticism and controversy to just Criticism. Then it would look nicely balanced. Matt 00:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Syed Ahmed Series 2

    cant we make a page for him?? Bobo6balde66 16:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    If you feel there's enough interest in him and have enough content to include then I don't see why not. However, if his sole importance is due to The Apprentice then I doubt whether he's noteable enough to warrant his own article. Seaserpent85 22:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    I wouldn't consider him sufficiently notable (per our guidelines at WP:BIO). In any case, per previous discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed3 re-creating this article would violate our policies and be liable for speedy deletion (per criteria G4). If you wish to contest the deletion, take it to deletion review. To my mind, we have a sufficient biography at List of The Apprentice candidates (UK)#Syed Ahmed. As I've stated in previous deletion discussions, Syed was not an apprentice winner, nor has he obtained (to my mind) any notability outside of the TV show. Media coverage of Syed seems limited to media speculation about his private life (almost exclusively in the Tabloids). Our precedent for shows such as Big Brother, whose contestants also received such media coverage, is to include a biography only on the programme's page. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    i did when i made it before but ill do it again Bobo6balde66 09:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Filming time

    Just found [4] which will probably come in useful for referencing the info about filming time etc. I myself can't remember what we had here, but hopefull this will jog someone's memory! Seaserpent85 17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    I'm back from exams! And this is the only one I could think of [5], but there were probably other things! --Fritzpoll 09:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Useful making-of article and suggestion

    Regarding some of the issues I had with the citations for some of the behind the scenes material, you may find this article on BBC News that appeared today useful. You should also move some of the dodgier cites on the making of (links to IMDB and TV.com) over to this story at it's from a more reliable source.

      • This is good stuff. I'm surprised the BBC published something so irreverant on their official news site. I added a couple of references from it, but there could be more.... Matt 23:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

    I note as well that there's something of a shitstorm brewing over Katie Hopkins' departure, accusing Sugar of sexism. Good material for the controversies section. Some useful links:

    -Joe King 18:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Locations

    I'm pretty sure that Series 1 was shot in Hammersmith (I live in Hammersmith), not Hampstead Heath. It was one of the houses on the river front, near the Riverside Studios & River Cafe, but I haven't amended anything as I don't know about series 2 location. Iantnm 22:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC) On researching it, it is definitely Bishops Avenue (known as Millionaire's Row), in Hammermsmith (source: Telegraph Article)Iantnm 22:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

    Hi there Ian, thanks for finding this out. Just wondering if you have a link to the telegraph article and we can put it in there! :) Seaserpent85 22:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

    Further to the above, Bishop's Ave is actually in Hamsptead (oops, being a bit hasty), therefore is location for Series 2. But the first series location was definitely Hammersmith/Chiswick, on the north side of the river. I think near Strand on the Green. Have drawn a blank on Series 3. Here is link to Telegraph Article:

    [[6]] Iantnm 22:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

    • I also thought I remembered one of the houses being near the river, but wasn't sure enough to change anything. Just to recap before I change it, are we happy that we have the following three locations now?
    Series 1 - Hammersmith riverfront
    Series 2 - Bishop's Avenue, Hamsptead
    Series 3 - Notting Hill
    Matt 23:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

    Series 1 was in Chiswick Mall to be exact. My sister lives a few doors down 217.207.148.180 14:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

    • Yep, Chiswick. I've updated the text with references. Matt 02:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Doubtful statement

    "Unlike most reality television programmes, The Apprentice is pre-recorded."

    Is it really true that "most" reality TV shows are not pre-recorded (i.e. are broadcast live)? I know some are, but surely a lot aren't? Matt 10:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

    Well, Big Brother (UK), Pop Idol, The X Factor (TV series), Fame Academy, Hell's Kitchen (UK TV series), Love Island and I'm a Celebrity are (just a few) of the live ones. The only pre-recorded one I can think of is Dragon's Den. Dalejenkins 16:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    This statement seems to have been distorted over time. I think what it was orginally trying to convey was that the WHOLE series was prerecorded. So the finalists were chosen even before the show began airing. Seaserpent85 21:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    I would like to fix it to make that clear, but I'm not sure about the timing of the filming of the final episode and the selection of the ultimate winner. Any idea when those things happen relative to the screening schedule? Matt 00:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC).

    [edit] New article for Spin-off shows?

    Would it be worth moving the "Related programmes" section into a new article, as done here with BBUK? Dalejenkins 18:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    • In my view, no. I think it's just fine as it is. Matt 00:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC).
    • I don't think there's enough there to justify a new article. Oh, I'm back btw - I'm hopefully gonna start working on the series articles to get them up to GA soon. Seaserpent85 10:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] AMSTRAD sold, worth a mention?

    As reported from various sources today, [7][8][9][10][11], Sky has bought AMSTRAD.

    Should that be mentioned here, possibly under "Future Series", as it could effect the programme and Sir Alan's/AMSTRAD's involvment? Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Yes, I think it definitely needs saying. Amstrad has been mentioned an awful lot in connection with the show, and the obvious question is, as you say, how will it affect the programme? I added a short note to the opening section, which is pretty feeble actually, just saying that it had happened and it's not yet clear if it will have any effect on the show. Matt 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC).

    [edit] Problematic references

    Apropos of one of the FA review comments, I went through all the links in the references section to check for broken ones. Here are the problematic ones. Maybe if you fix any you could strike it through on the list. Matt 22:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC).

    References with dead links

    • The BBC has announced that it has no plans to release the programmes on DVD.[1]
    • This YouTube video shows Harry Hill mocking the Apprentice. He's making fun of Series 2 Episode 5, which aired on March 22nd '06. Now as TV Burp is shown on Sundays, mocking the previous week's television, it's safe to assume we can use a cite episode template for this. {{cite episode |title=The Apprentice's Jo Cameron |episodelink= |series=Harry Hill's TV Burp |serieslink=Harry Hill's TV Burp |credits=[[Harry Hill]], [[Jo Cameron]], [[Sharon McAllister]], [[Ruth Badger]] |network=[[ITV]] |station=[[ITV One]] |airdate=2006-03-26 }} Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 11:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The winner was Michelle Dewberry, who briefly took up a post under Sir Alan but left in September 2006 after a series of personal problems.[5]

    References with links that require registration to access the content

    • (ratings table) 6.8[6]
    • Media Watch has voiced concerns over inclusion of company names and products such as Chrysler in the programme, accusing the producers of breaking BBC policy.[7]
    • ...with the audience increasing throughout the run to peak with 6.8 million people watching the finale.[8]

    References that link to Wikipedia articles (not really legitimate)

    • In more noticeable cases, hairstyles have also been different.[9]
    • As candidate numbers are whittled down the composition of the teams is periodically rearranged. When only four candidates remain (or five in the third series), they undergo individual interviews, resulting in the selection of two finalists.[11]
    1. ^ "Is there a DVD of The Apprentice available?", BBC. Retrieved on 2007-05-14. 
    2. ^ The Apprentice's Alexa in Harry Hill's TV Burp. Retrieved on 2007-05-18.
    3. ^ "Can I buy the music?", BBC. Retrieved on 2007-05-13. 
    4. ^ The Apprentice Series 4 online application form. Retrieved on 2007-05-18.
    5. ^ "Michelle checks out with payout", Sunday Mirror, 2006-09-24. Retrieved on 2006-09-24. 
    6. ^ Brook, Stephen. ""Apprentice ties with Talent show"", The Guardian, 2007-07-14. Retrieved on 2007-07-17. 
    7. ^ Curtis, Chris. "Concern over Apprentice 'indirect advertising'", Broadcastnow, 2007-05-14. Retrieved on 2007-05-14. 
    8. ^ Brook, Stephen. ""Apprentice ties with Talent show"", Guardian, 2007-06-14. Retrieved on 2007-06-17. (En) 
    9. ^ "Episode 7". The Apprentice Series Two. BBC. April 2006.
    10. ^ "Episode 1". The Apprentice Series One. BBC. 2005-02-16.
    11. ^ "Episode 11". The Apprentice Series One. BBC. 2005-05-03.
    • Dale, I just looked back here thinking that I might try to fix one or two, but I see you've already done them all! Nice work! Matt 22:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC).

    [edit] Copyedit

    This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in September 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
    • Copyeditor(s): Cricketgirl 20:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Proofreader: Galena11 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Question from proofread

    Hi there! I just finished the proofread of this article, and only had one "trouble spot", with this sentence:

    These are nominally the two poorest performing members of the team, but in practice the project manager may act treacherously and make choices based on personality.

    I have somewhat of an issue with "treacherously". It could be argued that the project managers are making stragegic decisions based on several possible criteria, including personality conflicts or the degree to which the project manager perceives the other team member to be a threat. These do not necessarily equate to "treachery"--it is merely engaging in the competition. Perhaps you could consider rephrasing this sentence. Galena11 16:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Apprentice Template

    Not meaning to show off or brag here, just pointing out that the 5 or so articles listed in the Apprentice UK template that were previously missing it have now had it added. The only one that doesn't is the Apprentice US, because I assume it doesn't need it. A surprisingly easy thing to overlook actually, I reckon I should spend more time here attaching templates to articles that should have them that don't...Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

    See my reply here. Seaserpent85 11:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] "Belligerence"

    You'll need a citation for "famously belligerent" in order to include it Fritzpoll (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    • He's described every week in the opening sequence as "Britain's most belligerent boss". I've added this exact quote, with a reference -- the point being that there was virtually nothing about Sugar's character, which is a central part of the show. We all know his persona in the show, but someone who's never watched it wouldn't. I think it's important to set the scene early on in this respect. Matt 21:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.100.62 (talk)
    Just because it's included in the filming of the tv program, does not mean that it has a place here on wikipedia...δ²(Talk) 03:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    That's not what I said. I didn't say it should be included "just because", I said it should be included because Sugar's persona is a "central part of the show". If you don't agree that Sugar's belligerent persona is a central part of the show then we must be watching two completely different programmes. Matt 11:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC).
    Saying that he is "famously belligerant" requires a specific source as it is a reference to him, and the television programme, as a source that might reasonably be supposed to simplify/exaggerate is not in my opinion sufficiently reliable Fritzpoll (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Matt, I'm not saying you are wrong or right about his character. What is more the point, is that this article is about the Apprentice and not Sir Alan; hence why "there was virtually nothing about Sugar's character". If you feel so strongly to include information about his character, I suggest you put it into the article about Sir Alan Sugar. Otherwise, follow what Fritzpoll has suggested above. δ²(Talk) 19:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Sir Alan's character in the show is entirely relevant -- essential, in fact, to adequately describe the show to someone who has never seen it. But I agree that the statement as it stood could have interpreted as a wider comment on his character, so I have reworded it and also moved it to the part of the "Format" section where the boardroom scenes are explained, and where this character is most on display. Hopefully we can all live with this. Matt 17:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.241.167 (talk)
    I have no problem with the way it is now worded, as it is placed in the wider context of a persona within the show. Thanks for understanding, Matt Fritzpoll (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] I'm getting confused

    Currently in the article:

    In fact, two versions of the final boardroom sequence are filmed — showing each of the finalists winning. Between filming and transmission — a period of about six months — both finalists work for Sir Alan in temporary jobs. Sir Alan does not reveal his decision about who is he is going to hire until shortly before transmission, and this determines which ending is shown. The BBC has issued contradictory statements about the decision procedure. The first version of events is that Sir Alan makes his decision on the day that the final boardroom sequence is filmed, based on the contestants' performance in the final task, and keeps it secret until just before transmission.[26] The second version is that Sir Alan decides after the six-month trial period.[27] Former contestant Saira Khan also stated that "His final decision is not based on the programme that people see. His final decision is based on these two people [who] have been working with him for the six months."[28]

    OK, so here we're saying that the final boardroom sequence -- and hence the final task, which must have been shot earlier -- are filmed at the back end of the previous year. Then there is the six month "temporary job" period, and then the question of whether SAS made up his mind last year and kept it secret, or whether he makes his decision after the "trial" (which, incidentally, seems an unknowable question, unless you happen to be SAS).

    BUT... on tonight's Friday Night with Jonathan Ross (May 9th 2008), JR said "... the final you haven't done ... you don't do until the week it goes out, do you?", to which SAS replied "no we don't do ... right to the day it goes out ... virtually the day before it goes out, yeah ..."

    It wasn't clear if he was talking about the whole show (including the task) or just the boardroom sequence, but the fact that even the boardroom sequence is filmed just before transmission contradicts what we say. Can anyone shed any more light on this? SAS's phrasing "no we don't do ..." kind of implies that this is the regular procedure, but is it possible that different procedures have been used in different series? Matt 01:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

    I'm pretty sure SAS was referring to the decision - either that or it's just a blatant lie to go along with the pretence that it's all happening now. So far, all 3 finale tasks and boardrooms have shown the candidates with hairstyles etc identical to the rest of the series, showing that the filming is definitely from last year. And even then, in Series Two, Michelle Dewberry ended up giving the game away that she'd won by sending an email from her Amstrad account halfway through the series. So SAS is almost certainly telling porkies! Seaserpent85 15:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, I guess you could be right. We should remember to keep an eye out for hairstyles etc. this year. I must say I'm crap at noticing things like that. Matt 02:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.46.136 (talk)

    [edit] Series summary

    I've just gone ahead and removed the table that was in place under the series section - the reason being is that all relevant information is already covered by the series section and navbox. I appreciate that readers probably want to know the facts quickly, but there's no need to list every single candidate twice and the international task from each series. Feel free to disagree with me here, but seeing as this is at featured status I feel any discussion about new material should take place before the material is added. Seaserpent85 19:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Unofficial merchandise

    Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia talk pages, but I can help quite a lot with info about the Apprentice UK. However, this entry is specifically about unofficial merchandise. Since there is a section for merchandise sold by BBC/Talkback, I would like to suggest 3 categories of unofficial merchandise:

    1/ Books by ex-candidates. I'm aware of two that have actually been published: "Anything is Possible" by Michelle Dewberry and "P.U.S.H. for Success" by Saira Khan.

    2/ Unofficial books about the show ... specifically, an e-book that I wrote, with a lot of help from candidates' blogs and fan reactions, about Series 1. I tried editing a link to it onto the main Wikipedia page for the Apprentice UK, but since the book is hosted on geocities, my entry got zapped by a bot. I was told to come here and discuss if 'the community' thought the link should be included. The book is free, so I'm not breaking any conflict of interest guidelines relating to financial promotion. If anyone wants to look at it and see if they consider it suitable and/or unbiased, it's at www.geocities.com/jkk398/apprenticebook.html. (2Mb PDF file).

    3/ Merchandise apart from books. I'm aware of a company that does LEGO mock-ups of the firings (on their site and on YouTube) who are selling some associated coffee mugs. If this site can't be linked under Merchandise due to Wikipedia guidelines, might it be a good entry for the "Spoofs" section? I also know of a company who used to do "You're Fired" T-shirts - I guess that would be too unrelated to the series to pass Wikipedia guidelines? Jkck (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

    Hmm... you raise some interesting points here. To take your points in turn:
    1. The two books by ex-candidates which you list are more about the candidates themselves, than they are about the Apprentice TV show (although undoubtedly it's the candidates part in the Apprentice that has caused them to be published). I certainly don't think it's worth creating a section on this, and doing so would likely just end up a list of only loosely related books. I think the best bet is to mention them on the articles for the people concerned: Michelle Dewberry and Saira Khan which I note they already are.
    2. This is a tough one, and I'd welcome other user's views on this. I'll be honest - when I first saw the link I largely assumed it would be low quality spam with plenty of ads. Clearly it isn't, and actually seems pretty well written (congratulations - must have taken a while!), and certainly related to the subject matter. I appreciate you're new here so may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's style, but there would be no reason to add a paragraph to the article mentioning your eBook. We could add an external link however: doing so would seem in keeping with the guidance at Wikipedia:External links to link Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. I was slightly concerned with copyrights though (I note you don't seem to explicitly list copyright / licensing of the eBook). Specifically, guidance states that Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. Whilst I appreciate you do state that some of the profiles came from the BBC's site, that some of the reviews were written by another user on the web, and that some has been taken from people's blogs etc etc I'm not convinced that that exonerates you from any copyright issues. I'm not a lawyer, but I think if you take more copyright material than what is considered a quote, without licensing to do so, is probably against copyright law, even if you acknowledge doing so. So - if anything - it would be a one-line addition of your book to external links that would be added - but I'd like to see what others think first.
    3. Hmm... interesting point the last bit. I think it comes down to notability in the end. If I randomly make a spoof of some sort, and publish it on the internet, then it is not sufficiently notable to include in this article. If, on the other hand, the site I publish it on then receives millions of visitors, or is picked up on by the press, or on the programme itself, then it's perhaps gained enough notability to include a one-liner on in this article. My first reaction to your lego point is that they won't be sufficiently notable - so it would be up to you to address this point in the content of any text you added to the article.
    Hope this helps. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    As a follow up to this, since excerpts of the lego clips were just included in the follow up "You're Hired" programme, I think that makes them worthy of an addition to our parodies section. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Why aren't there information leaks?

    Apologies if this has been discussed before, but am I right in assuming that, even though the whole series is pre-recorded, no information ever leaks regarding events in episodes that haven't yet been broadcast? In the article, if possible, it would be interesting to shed some light on why this works so well. It's clear that ex-participants are bound to a strict confidentiality agreement (as mentioned here), but it's somewhat surprising that tabloids don't try (or manage) to locate ex-finalists and find out where they're currently working, for example... Perhaps it's simply the case that any newspaper that attempted such a move would be heavily sued? 134.36.37.145 (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    It does leak - if you look at internet forums there are spoiler threads where almost every week they've managed to work out who gets fired. In the current series, there were photos flying round of week 10 before the series had even started. As for the press, it's not in their interest to spoil it - they love dragging it out to get the money! The problem with adding details of the contracts to this article is that I doubt you'll find many reliable sources - a lot of it is mere speculation. Seaserpent85 09:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for the explanation, Seaserpent. I wasn't aware of the existence of those spoiler threads, and what you say about the press makes sense. Pedro G. 134.36.37.145 (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Nutter Comment

    I suppose I'm the only one that found the 'nutter' comments/jokes of the last episodes just a tad distasteful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.8 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)