Talk:The Apprentice (British TV series)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)

Series 6

I have never edited a Wikipedia page before, I noticed on the BBC website an article confirming series 6 will be delayed. I checked Wikipedia and realised no one had updated it , so i did a quick fix myself. I know full well it is not perfect, so I encourage someone else to a better job. But i thought me doing it is better than it being outdated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.185.94 (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• Times
• Herald
• Belfast Telegraph
• This Is London
• Grauniad

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

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)

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).

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)

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).

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.

• Can't find this anywhere, will have to be removed. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 11:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• The show has been imitated in the ITV1 programme Harry Hill's TV Burp.

• 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)

• An official soundtrack was released on 11 June, 2007.

• Replaced eith Amazon link. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 11:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Auditions and interviews are due to take place during the first two weeks of July 2007 in London, Manchester, Birmingham and Bristol.

• Used web archive-very handy. 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.

• Another link found from Michelle's article. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 11:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

References with links that require registration to access the content

• (ratings table) 6.8

• Replaced. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 11:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• 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.

• Replaced with alternative Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• ...with the audience increasing throughout the run to peak with 6.8 million people watching the finale.

• Alternative found. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 11:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

References that link to Wikipedia articles (not really legitimate)

• In more noticeable cases, hairstyles have also been different.

• Done. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 11:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• The company's real location, in Brentwood, Essex is rarely mentioned.

• Done. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 11:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• 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.

• Done. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 12:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

---

---

• 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).

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Move proposal

I'm proposing renaming the series articles to The Apprentice (UK series one) instead of The Apprentice (UK Series One) and so forth. Is series one part the official title? If it is not part of a proper noun, it should not be capitalized. Please add any comments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Season article naming. Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Airings on CNBC America

The Apprentice UK airs on the American network CNBC which is a sister network to NBC it airs on Mondays at 8/7c PM with repeats on Saturday. I think this might be worth a mention. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Any news if future series are going to air 2+ on BBC AMERICA??? --Cooly123 (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Reorganisation proposal

Coming back to this article after a long absence (good to see, btw, that it hasn't suffered too much from "article rot"), it strikes me that there's really no point having the "History" and "Series" sections separate when there's so much overlap and duplication. I propose that these sections are merged. What do you think? 86.152.242.69 (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

Yes, agreed - Matt is that you?! Oh, and also whilst we are on the subject, anyone any idea how likely it is we could get this onto the main page around the date of the new series? I think we attempted last year but we were too late. Seaserpent⁸⁵ 22:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Seaserpent, yes, it's Matt... well remembered! 86.152.242.69 (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, since there have been no further comments I've gone ahead and done this. Matt 19:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.21.254 (talk)

"typically shot during the autumn..."

The article says "...typically the series is shot during the autumn for transmission the following year", but is it not the case that all series have been shot in the autumn and shown the following year? Matt 20:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.21.254 (talk)

Margaret Mountford

Article says:

Margaret Mountford has worked with Sugar as one of his main advisers for 20 years, and is a non-executive director of Amstrad PLC.

I'm wondering if this is still true -- that she's a director, I mean. In fact, does "Amstrad PLC" even still exist?? Matt 20:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.21.254 (talk)

"... entering the Amstrad building ..."

Just while I'm thinking about it, another passage that will need updating...

...at the same time as the scene in which they are shown entering the Amstrad building at the start of the first episode...

I honestly can't remember now if the Amstrad building featured in the last series, but I assume it definitely won't in the forthcoming one... Matt 20:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.21.254 (talk)

Comic Relief Does The Apprentice

1. The new "Series history" section, which is a fusion of the old "Series" and "History" sections (cunning, eh?), contains information carried over about Comic Relief Does The Apprentice which overlaps and duplicates the later "Related programmes" section. I propose to remove this info from "Series history", moving anything not already covered to "Related programmes", unless anyone particularly feels it should stay. Matt 21:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC).

• In fact, I've just gone ahead and done this because what we had was so obviously wrong -- the descriptions of the two editions in completely different places in the article. If you think that Comic Relief Does The Apprentice needs a brief mention in "Series history" then please add it in (but we don't need all the detail there as well as under "Related programmes"). Matt 23:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.21.254 (talk)

2. I propose to change the section heading "Related programmes" to "Spin-offs" to match the terminology used in the lead. Any objections? Matt 21:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.21.254 (talk)

With regret

Sorry about the lack of a better place to bring this up but this is something that is in most of the child articles: is there a citation for the significance of "with regret" ? Has Alan Sugar specifically said that this has a special meaning ? If so, what does he mean, that he didn't want to fire them but he has to choose one person to fire ? Isn't it just a mannerism ? Surely if he thought it was the wrong decision he wouldn't fire them ?

I mean, occasionally he had said things like "I've no doubt you were to blame for causing this mess, you're fired" - does this mean you're going to put in the table "Fired: John Doe (without a doubt)", etc.

82.0.88.15 (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Summary of success (or otherwise) of winners

The article would definitely be enhanced with a summary section listing the winners and how long they lasted in the job they 'won'.Tomintoul (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now added this. Tomintoul (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for discussion, merger with the apprentice U.S

An editor has requested a disucssion on a possible merger of this article with the Apprentice U.S. Please comment and vote below.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to do this? Tomintoul (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not in favour of this idea. Both are separate shows, with different candidates, tasks and outcomes. Also would we include the Australian, Chinese and other versions? Kransky (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The table of results - change it back

The Elimination Chart is so ugly, it use to be great - they'd be in blue (boys) and pink (girls) boxes and it would have the PM or B inside the boxes, depending on who was Project Manager or brought back into the boardroom. The elimination chart now is ugly, boring and completely bad. Can't we revert it back to the erstwhile one? Please? 193.61.234.13 (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor issue: duplicate sentence

"Apprentice-related merchandising includes a magazine, podcast, and official books.[12][13][14]" is in there 2 times at the top (4th and 5th paragraph). Tried to edit it out, but it messed with the citations somehow in the preview...so better leaving it to someone who knows what he's doing. 84.203.34.227 (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Work needed

Hello everyone - Unfortunately, this article does not meet the current standards for a featured article. The major issues is that it is significantly under-referenced, with many sections and paragraphs being partially or completely unreferenced. There are also a clarification needed tag, a citation needed tag, a dated info tag and over a dozen dead link tags present in the article. Several of the sections are chopped up into a bunch of subsections, which look ugly - subsections aren't needed when they're only for one or two sentences. There seems to be some disparity in the amount of info on each season, with some seasons only given a couple of sentences, while others are described in multiple paragraphs. If work is not completed on these issues in the next few weeks, this article will need to be taken to WP:Featured article review for a possible revocation of its featured status. Dana boomer (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I tagged some of the series articles as needing references as most of them are comprised of original research with no references whatsoever. Those templates have been removed; I'm not willing to expend the energy to obtain references - I live in the U.S. and got involved with these articles when I split one long article about candidates into separate candidate articles for each series. I would move directly to the next step in the process of removing Featured Article status; there don't seem to be committed editors attached to these articles anymore, just folks who want to "report" the results of the shows. Not encyclopedic, but I'm not up for banging my head on a wall! Good luck.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 17:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Quick note: I notice that no one has added a blurb about the results of series eight to this article - just more evidence that dedicated editors have disappeared.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 18:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with D'Ranged – move straight to removing FA status.Tomintoul (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog

In looking over the articles for the individual seasons I notice several with one reference or a very short list of references. These articles are more like reading a blog than encyclopedia articles. It is dismaying when I have spent hours on other articles finding sources, inserting citations, etc., only to have the article deleted; what is keeping these articles in Wikipedia? They are little more than editors reporting on the results of a popular television show from their own viewing of the show; lacking sources, entire articles could (and possibly should) be entirely blanked due to lack of attribuion to verifiable sources. I would think that these articles fall under the strictures of WP:BLP; lacking verifiable information, all the content could "legally" be removed on that basis. If no one is interested in turning these blog posts into encyclopedia articles, I suggest that they be deleted.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 01:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of process

I really don't like the way the 'Criticism of process' section is laid out. It comes across as very biased. The things that is makes reference to occurred, but it comes across as though it is using those things to suggest that overall The Apprentice is not a real job interview. This is something that in fairness comes mostly from what happened with Stella English, but there have been numerous other winners besides Stella who have praised the process and Lord Sugar, and done very well for themselves as a result. I think this section gives a very biased and opinion-based perspective on it. George.millman (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no bias. It simply states what occurred and contains fully referenced quotes. Tomintoul (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Series numbers

I don't follow this article or watch this programme but came to one of the related articles because of one of the contestants being a Celebrity Big Brother housemate. I wondered why the individual series in some places (including article titles) are referred to as "series one", "series two", etc, and not "series 1", "series 2", etc, as most Wikipedia series/season articles are. If there's no reason, it might be a good idea to use digits instead of words (see also the BBC website). –anemoneprojectors– 10:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Apprentice (UK TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070429031755/http://www.bolegbros.co.uk:80/apprentice3/index.asp to http://www.bolegbros.co.uk/apprentice3/Index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Trump vs Sugar

I think the twitter debate between the two deserves a short mention. Here's an article about it: http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2012/dec/07/donald-trump-alan-sugar-twitter-fight PizzaMan (♨♨) 11:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Apprentice (UK TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070509174435/http://www.athomemagazine.co.uk:80/apprenticemagazine/ to http://www.athomemagazine.co.uk/apprenticemagazine/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090316045409/http://portobellodock.com:80/home.html to http://www.portobellodock.com/home.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Apprentice (UK TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.godfreyvaughan.co.uk/investment/52_bedfordsquare.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110720192128/http://journals.aol.co.uk/jamesmaxblog/the-apprentice-2007/?page=2 to http://journals.aol.co.uk/jamesmaxblog/the-apprentice-2007/?page=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Apprentice (UK TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.godfreyvaughan.co.uk/investment/52_bedfordsquare.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Priority Discussion - Sub-articles of The Apprentice (UK TV Series) for respective series of this programme

I would like to put forward an important discussion in regards to the information that has been put out in the articles that cover each series of The Apprentice (UK). This discussion is an important one that needs to be looked into, as I, an editor for this site, have begun to question whether the information in these articles is encyclopedic, or whether the articles are beginning to become treated as a Blog, which Wikipedia is not designed as. As an editor who has worked on these pages, I have been a part of adding in information to discuss the respective episodes, but have begun to question whether the information being put in by myself, and other editors, regardless of whether it is later changed, added to, or deleted, is now really relevant, and more importantly sticks to Wikipedia's principle of providing encyclopedic information.

The chief problem on these articles is in regards to information on episodes. The layout for this information is that it states the Air Date for each episode in each series, the teams and their candidates within, the task being undertaken on that episode and a review of what happened, results of the task and who won and what they were rewarded with, who was brought back to the final boardroom, who was fired or left, the panellist for the sister show that came after that episode, and notes in regards to events in the episode (i.e. a candidate who made a mistake and tried to lie about it).

Other information in this article, from the lead, the candidate and weekly results, criticism and controversy, and ratings, appears to be fine, with some area certainly backed by citations to prove it. What I want to know is this - Should the information within the Episode section of each article for these series, be changed or stick to the way it is presented? Does it constitute as being a Blog and thus go against Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in regards to this? And if the first two questions generate "Yes" as an answer, would changing it to listing the episodes in a table, keeping the Air Date and the episode's title, and writing out a short summary of the episode (as with most TV programmes), be more appropriate?

I await word from others on what they think. GUtt01 (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I have to admit, sometimes I'm reading the episode information (especially the notes) and I'm thinking "This is really long." xD I like the table idea, keeping the title and date, and would include sections like these inside it, only including important information that is not subject to opinion and make it look less like a blog in the process.

• Task: Sentence(s) saying what task is, any incidents such as team changes or withdraws occurring, and result (e.g. "The task was to set up a business at [insert location here] and sell products. The team with the most profit wins. [Team 1] defeated [Team 2] by £548.35, making a profit of £450.25 compared to [Team 2]'s loss of £98.10).
• Withdrew: Name of a candidate if they decide to withdraw (if applicable).
• Winners: Names of winning team members
• Sentence here if someone was fired before final boardroom (e.g. "During the task review, Lord Sugar fired [candidate's name] due to the large scale of [Team's name] loss".)
• Safe: Names of losing team members safe from boardroom
• Brought into the boardroom: Names of candidates brought into boardroom
• Sentence saying who was fired (e.g. "Lord Sugar decided that [candidate's name] was most to blame for the loss and fired him/her".)
• Fired: Name of fired candidate(s)

Something like that. If I had to change the summaries, that's how I would do it. Those are my thoughts. I really want to help if I'm needed.

Thanks,
ChrisMorris1234 (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@ChrisMorris1234: I am afraid that what you suggest sounds still much like a blog in some ways, as I don't think that those sections you suggested are appropriate in any way or form. What I suggested, sounds more appropriate, but I'm starting to have thoughts that the pages may be more unnecessary. I had a look at the article for the American version, and I don't see anything there that suggests that Wikipedians ever made sub-articles for the original version's series. I really need to see more input on this matter, because I believe it is a very important one that needs thorough discussion. If there is no further input to convince me and others that the articles are fine, or would be suitable in the way I suggest, I may find myself questioning whether the sub-articles should stay, or should be put up for deletion...

Still... I appreciate the input you made, and thank you for adding your thoughts to the matter. GUtt01 (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I like the way the articles are. I think as long as each of the entries in the pages such as the task review, who got fired, additional notes, etc. are balanced and come from what the episode gave us, as opposed to one's interpretation, then it should be alright. Maybe some opinions do get caught up in the edits eventually, but I think, for the most part, the articles are constructive and don't come from a place of bias and defamation. Maybe it's just been the way I'm used to it since I first started editing roughly around the tenth series, but I think as long as the edits are unbiased, informative and interesting, I think it's fine. Rotten Tardises (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rotten Tardises: I admit when seeing the latest work to the latest episode of Series 12, I am compelled to do a bit more editing to it, but I do believe that this is an important discussion to debate on. I would appreciate any help to pass this matter's debate onto as many editors who enjoy The Apprentice (UK), so as to get a general consensus in regards to the topic of this matter.

I have taken in your thoughts, and appreciate the input that you have made. Thank you for responding to my message about this discussion. GUtt01 (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I've taken a look at some other UK shows that are done in series form, such as GBBO and whatnot, and most others don't have nearly as much detail as tends to get put into The Apprentice's one. I don't think it goes against WP:NOT with respect to blogging, as it's not blogging in the sense of blogging but more just us putting in perhaps a lot more information than what is needed. If we do want to cut back on the "stylised" content then :@ChrisMorris1234:'s format is definitely a good starting point. Removes all the waffle that tends to go on, down to the point, and each sentence should be citeable from the inevitable media articles proceeding each episode. All in all I'm not honestly fussed in the direction the pages go, and am too busy to be able to help with a grand redesign of the entire 12 series pages, but it's a fair point nonetheless. eeveeman (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@GUtt01: Had a thought that the severe/chronic lack of references to anything editors are adding into the notes section probably puts it foul of WP:NOT in terms of blogging. I'd say we'd need to refactor the notes section down greatly if and when we do reference; I don't see any compelling reason why an editor couldn't just wipe the sections out on the basis of bias and lack of sourcing. eeveeman (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, discussion of this went well, and everyone has continued with previous style of noting everything to high heavens. Ah well. eeveeman (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Winner of Apprentice - Why add in the info before a Series is finished?

Can we have a general agreement not to include information on who has won the current series of this show, before its finale has been aired? I have noticed people adding in the result, which quite literally can spoil it for others watching the programme; Wikipedia is NOT a site for spoilers on TV/Radio shows, video games, films, and books, in terms of unreleased/unaired items. While this is the case for mostly fictional work, competitions are just the same in this regard. I know that some people have added in the Winner of the twelfth series, but checking online I have noted that this is speculation from media sites over a claimed gaffe of Lord Alan Sugar.

For goodness sakes, people... Wait until the series has finished airing, before adding this in, as we can't substantiate a purported claim by the media of who the winner is, as proof that this is the final result of this year's competition. GUtt01 (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Idea For Performance Charts

I read through the Series Eleven Criticism/Controversy page and when I read Selina Waterman-Smith got a verbal warning from the producers, I thought to myself "What if she did actually get kicked out of the show". I had the idea should that happen during one of the future series, I had an idea the candidate in question could have noted to have been disqualified from the process (not fired) with the entry in question resembling this.

| style="background:crimson;"|DISQ

Just an idea. What does everyone else think?

Rotten Tardises (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I am intrigued by this idea. I do recall seeing on YouTube that a candidate on the American original got "Fired" after Trump found he had been cheating behind the scenes. I say we keep this in mind, just in case someone is disqualified in future series. GUtt01 (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

IMPORTANT DISCUSSION - "What should be Controversy in this programme?"

To Wikipedians who involve themselves in editing the articles for each series of The Apprentice, whether regularly, frequently, or occasionally, an important discussion is needed on the following matter:

"What should be considered Controversy on the programme for each series?" Naturally, many of you will believe that Criticism should be anything in which viewers complained about the content of an episode because of material that was deemed offensive or in poor taste, such as a passing remark about a person's race, but what about Controversy? What should we consider Controversial in terms of the contents of an episode of the programme? I believe it would be a wise idea to discuss this matter to determine if any information that has been added in that falls under Controversy, is exactly that, and not merely an effort to maintain gossip or unfounded information. GUtt01 (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@GUtt01, I'm really glad you have brought this up. There are a few things to consider, firstly, whether or not there is a reliable source. The Sun, The Express, The Mirror, The Star, and The Daily Mail, and all such tabloid newspapers which are almost all responsible for the so-called 'controversies', are not suitable / reliable sources. WP:NEWSORG states "Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip", and WP:QS states that sources "that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion ... are not suitable sources for contentious claims" (contentious is defined as "causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial"). These newspapers (and websites) are all well-known to be perfect examples of this, and many WikiProjects refuse to accept them as sources for this reason. I've not got the time now, but at some point I will have a look at WP:INDEPENDENT to see what it says on the matter. These so-called 'controversies' are perfect examples of contentious claims, which breaks Wikipedia's rules on notability.

WP:SENSATION is very clear that sensationalist tabloid journalism is "a poor basis for an encyclopedia article", and "Per policy, Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip", which is exactly what all of this is. WP:NOTSCANDAL (in particular, sections 2 and 3) further reinforces that. These alone are enough to get rid of almost all of these so-called 'controversies' from each season's page. That also brings to my attention that it is content about living people, namely the contestants, so we are supposed to be very strict about what is said. It must be relevant and not attack or deliberately ruin the reputation of a person (which tabloids are well-known for doing). Complete information can be seen at WP:ALIVE, which applies "when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page".

Finally, relevance has to be considered. Although this is not an official policy or guideline, it is nonetheless important that all information on these pages is relevant. The vast majority of the so-called 'controversies' have absolutely no bearing to the season as a whole. It very rarely affects the content (including the outcome) or broadcasting of the television program, and most of the time people who don't read tabloid news will not be aware of any 'controversy' whatsoever.

It seems clear to me that to be included in the article, something must genuinely affect the content or broadcasting, and having been reported in a reliable source (preferably several), such as BBC News. Sr88, talk. 00:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sr88 That can be certainly understandable, and I'm glad someone finally responded to this. I read the above, and must ask this in regards to newspaper articles providing some of the controversy - in your opinion, would articles of this nature be removed, regardless of them containing quotes that were genuinely made to them by candidates? GUtt01 (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sr88 Took a look, and had a redo of the Criticism and Controversy sections in each Series article, focusing on those that do raise notable forms of Criticism and Controversy in the programme. GUtt01 (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Broadcasting Schedule for Current Series - Need insight on Autumn Airing

I believe that the last two series were aired in Autumn due to the BBC wanting to avoid the programme clashing with notable events - political elections and sports - but does anyone know what the reason was for the show being aired in Autumn for the latest series (Series 13)? I want to know that, so I can add it in as part of the Lead for the article covering that series. GUtt01 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)