Talk:The Apprentice (UK Series Three)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article The Apprentice (UK Series Three) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
TV This is a talk page for discussion of the article about The Apprentice (UK Series Three). 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 Series Three) 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.

Contents

[edit] PICTURE IS WRONG

The picture showing the candidates in the teams is wrong. It states the girl on the bottom row on the left is Lucinda, when in fact it is Natalie.

[edit] Sir Alan

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

[edit] Candidate Biographies

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)

Absolutely, and since it is a word-for-word copy, it is a blatant copyright violation from [1] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] Upcoming Episodes

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Candidate Bios

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)

[edit] Further

Im gonna leave the name, age and occupation on the table but then does anyone think a proper, seperate table for firings, pm weeks and what teams they were on??? Olz06 12:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've made a basic table - as compact as I can make it. Let me know what you think Seaserpent85 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Weekly Results Table!

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Is this right?

The article says "The men eventually chose the name "Eclipse", after the coffee company of the same name that both teams sold coffee under in the first episode."

Was "Eclipse" really already the name of the coffee company, or didn't the men just call their coffee-selling enterprise Eclipse because that was already their (new) team name? And did both teams really sell coffee under the name "Eclipse"?

Maybe I am getting confused, but this sentence seems wrong somehow. Matt 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Good spot, his info is definitely incorrect - they sold 'Eclipse Coffee' because their team name had already been decided as 'Eclipse' and nopt vice versa. Seaserpent85 14:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Weekly Results Table-"Fired" colours

Seaserpent85 and I have come to a disagreement over this issue. I believe that the "fired" colour should look like this-

Candidate Episode Number Result
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Adam PM
Ghazal PM
Jadine PM B
Katie PM
Kristina PM
Lohit
Naomi PM
Natalie B PM
Paul
Simon
Tre B PM
Sophie B B Fired in Week 4
Gerri B B Fired in Week 3
Rory PM Fired in Week 2
Ifti B Fired in Week 2
Andy PM Fired in Week 1

While Seaserpent85 wants this-

Candidate Episode Number Result
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Adam PM
Ghazal PM
Jadine PM B
Katie PM
Kristina PM
Lohit
Naomi PM
Natalie B PM
Paul
Simon
Tre B PM
Sophie B B Fired in Week 4
Gerri B B Fired in Week 3
Rory PM Fired in Week 2
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)

(...and whoever gets the fewest votes is, erm, FIRED!?)

I vote for SeaSerpent's colour scheme - grey is the standard colour used to indicate that a table entry is not in use/invalid which would be the case here. The use of red is very off-putting, and implies some extra status that has not been listed.. I can understand the choice of red, to highlight those who have been fired but this is already highlighted by the text in the rightmost column - fritzpoll 00:37, 22 April 2007 (BST)

  • The red hurts my eyes. And, as per fritzpoll, it looks as if it has some unexplained meaning. The grey is just fine for me, but I understand there may be issues for colour-blind readers which I am ignorant of and couldn't comment on. Does there need to be any colour at all? Could the cells just be left empty? Matt 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
  • I vote for SeaSerpent's scheme. The grey is less obtrusive. I think we need to have colours to help make the chart easier to read. Jamesb1 08:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


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)
The existing table seems clear and well designed to me. What do you dislike about it? Matt 02:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
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)

[edit] Including rubbish from News of The World

I am highly against putting these 'reports' in from such a notoriously unreliable source. They don't particularly add anything - the report of Rory returning is almost certainly just Rory dragging out his 5 minutes of fame. And as for this series being known for Paul and Katie's relationship... it was shown mildly in one episode, hardly a major point.

And if you're going to put these 2 'reports' in, why not include the rest? Naomi's sex tape, Jadine calling the police on Tre, SAS gets plastic surgery... the list goes on. Seaserpent85 13:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If a national newspaper is reliable, what is? In this ever-changing world in which we live, the media is full of "lies"-which none of those stories are.
  • Paul and Katie did have a relationship, as you confirmed in your post.
  • Rory stated this comment, just because you don't believe him it doesn't mean it's not true.
  • Naomi's sex tape is included in the "Controversy" section of the main article.
  • I was on my way to add the Jadine calling the police story.
  • Sir Alan getting plastic surgery has got nothing to do with The Apprentice.

Happy editing!

Dalejenkins


This is clearly a bit of a problem - the News of the world articles are contradicting each other. Look at reference 10 and 23 - in one, it declares that Katie and Paul were "at it" and in the other, it reiterates Paul's claim that nothing beyond being "tactile" took place, a position he has repeated on television. I think this is evidence of the dubious nature of including tabloid articles (which I would hardly consider a reliable source at the best of times), and welcome people's thoughts: My opinion, however, is that this article needs to be cleaned up and have a lot of this tabloid stuff removed. --Fritzpoll 19:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note, my edits have since eliminated reference 23 - I selected a slightly less sensationalist source for the result, in line with that chosen for earlier episodes. Fritzpoll 20:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advance notifications

I would like to strongly suggest avoiding including details about who ends up in the boardroom/is fired in a particular week before that episode airs. I am aware that the spoiler tags should be a warning, but people cannot reasonably expect that the information for an unaired episode will be available, and including any details of who is in the boardroom effectively spoils the episode. I have therefore removed the information (having been annoyed to have my viewing for this evening ruined :) ) and if people disagree, I think it would be better if we discussed this here first before a revert is made. --Fritzpoll 15:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree - see talk further up the page. Though if you don't want to know, then I would suggest avoiding this page on Wednesdays before the show - due to the nature of Wikipedia, someone will almost always take it upon themselves to add this in before the episode airs. There isn't much we can do to be honest, except of course revert any such edits. The big problem, is that the tabloids have been spilling the beans early and giving people a source for this info - several major contributors to this article seem to be fans of including it. That said, I support this idea and will also do my best to revert any major spoilers. Seaserpent85 15:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I take your point about not viewing it prior to the show - no objection to the week by week allocation of project managers, since these are often announced at the end of the show. I think there needs to be an unwritten rule that the results of current programmes can only be sourced from the program itself --Fritzpoll 16:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, just look at the words in the spoler tags. If you don't want the possibility of you viwing ruined, don't read info about a future episode. Dalejenkins
Reverted. It depends on your definition of a "Spoiler". My contention is that people seeing a "spoiler" tag will presume that only the episodes that have been aired haver information displayed. By displaying *future* information, I believe you are stretching the definition of spoiler to an unreasonable degree. Since I have the agreement of other members on this, can you continue the discussion here before restoring the edits, as I requested in my original message. --Fritzpoll 16:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that reasonable person would assume that spoilers would contain future information. That is not the common usage of the term spoiler. If Dale keeps insisting on ruining episodes, then I guess we will just have to contact someone because it is BS. Dale obviously does not care about anyone else's wishes... 68.13.109.131 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, you can accidentally look at a future episode while looking at the episode or two before it. So your suggestion about not looking at future episodes is rubbish. 68.13.109.131 21:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Week 6 Error.

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).

pjb007 18:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Good spot, I've just corrected it. Seaserpent85 19:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template suggestion

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)

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)
Think it looks fantastic - good job! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New spoiler tag

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)

Agreed, nice solution └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 13:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
<takes bow> I made that template. Thanks guys. Dalejenkins 11:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Nice one, Dale :) Fritzpoll 15:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship between Katie Hopkins and Paul Callaghan

Ok, I'm going to tackle this head on, and boldly suggest that this section be substantially rewritten, or removed. The section is altogether too forthright and definite in its statement that Paul and Katie had a relationship. It should be pointed out that other articles previously referenced here (though subsequently removed following rewrites by myself) in papers such as the News of the World and in interviews published on the BBC website say that although the two were "close" Paul denies any, quote, "exchange of bodily fluids". Since the News of the World was the principal source of info for the "romance" claim (no references to them having sex were made on the programme) I find it laughable that we should use this as a source for this section. Either both sides need to be presented, or the majority view, which is that they didn't actually have sex, they just got very close. Personally, I think this makes it a non-notable point, and so vote for removal. I will not remove it, however, until everyone else gets their say. There - rant over :) --Fritzpoll 10:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be in the article at all, had it become an on-screen romance then I think it would have. As it stands, their romance has hardly featured at all in the show, and that is what this article should be about, the show! How about putting a condensed version into Paul & Katie's sections in the list of candidates article? Seaserpent85 12:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've (boldly?) made the corrections. Literally one sentence added to their bios to mention their apparent relationship. I have also removed the section from this article. Can you guys check it out and make any edits you feel are appropriate? Fritzpoll 15:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idea for weekly review table

Looking at the weekly review table, I think it would be better to change the colours, so they don't represent Stealth or Eclipse, but so they represent the week's winning team, and losing team. It's not really important if one person was in "Stealth" one week, for example, and if you want to see how many times a particular contestant has been on the winning/losing team, it's a lot easier. PLUS, it isn't really important knowing that "Oh Eclipse lost in week 4, but won in week 5", because the teams swap contestants all the time.

Hmm, that's a very good point with which I'm inclined to agree - knowing who was in the winning team would be more useful than knowing who was in Stealth on any given week, in my opinion └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 17:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this. Winning and losing isn't particularly important unless the candidate gets fired, in which case they were evidently on the losing side. Your suggestion gives the impression that having a certain amount of wins/losses would affect thr candidates' outcome, which isn't the case - take Ruth in series 2, she lost 7 out of 10 tasks and made it to the final. As it is, the table shows who worked with each other over the course of the series as well as showing team reshuffles etc. I think we need to remember that this table isn't a complete overview of the series, it's just there to complement the challenges section. Seaserpent85 17:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
As per Seaserpent, Ruth also "won" in the final, but Michelle was hired. Dalejenkins

[edit] Inclusion of information on the final

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)

I've sourced it properly. Dalejenkins 12:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
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)

OK, so my putting the spoiler in about the final is probably not very fair before it has aired, but it's so glaringly obvious from viewing the program as to whom Alan Sugar points whilst saying "you're hired" that I've put it up, not as rumour, but as a first-hand report.

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Candidate Websites

I've taken the liberty of adding a column to the candidate bios linking to their personal websites. There are still a few blanks, so if anyone knows if the missing candidates have a webpage can they please add to it. I think this is a useful resource that people can go to for extra info on certain contestants and is worth noting. 88.104.198.222 16:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Additions To Weekly Results

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)

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)

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)

  • 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).
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)
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)


    • NJ here, guys I have modified the Weekly results table so as to include the Records as a Project Manager. Our American counterparts have it in their Wikis, why not we ? Now, when I get time, I will continue for Apprentice 1 & 2

[edit] Stealth's Week 9 total

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)

[edit] GA Review

Good work on the article, however there are a few issues which must be resolved prior to promoting this article.

1. 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.

Y Done, I have added in this infomation, although have kept the footnotes in the lead as I feel it makes the text more reliable, as I personally disagree with the old "if its in the lead and article, don't cite the lead" thing. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 19:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

2. 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).

Comment - Firstly, that isn't exactly correct, as Ruth and Syed left the boat to go into some town in Spain in order to buy prizes for a competition they were running on the cruise. They bought champagne and eventually gave it away for free (!). Anyway, I've Y Done mentioned that the show moved from BBC Two to BBC One, and that there are now 16 candidates, not 14. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 18:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done, added in some infomation about which tasks have been done in previous series. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 17:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

3. 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.

Comment - We did have a section on the "Kaul" relationship, but a discussion on this page decided it was too "tabloidish", as both denied that there was a relationship, so most of it was speculation. Katie's personal life is thoroughly documented in her own article, anyway.Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 09:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It is true that this is tabloidish, but the controversy occurred whether it was true or not. I don't think that details of it are nescessary, but at least a mention that there was a controversy is important, as it is not even mentioned in the controversy section. Something should be written about the 'alleged' relationship between Paul and Katie. It definetly had an effect on the series, and was an important aspect to it, both within the series (the other contestants complained), and outside (media coverage).Zeus1234 01:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Y Done, added this into the contestants section. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 17:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

4. 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.

Y Done, an "Aftermath" section has been added. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 19:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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)