Talk:The Apprentice (British TV series) series 5

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 September 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

BBC Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Television: The Apprentice UK Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Apprentice UK task force.

Flickr[edit]

I'm sorry to be awkward, but unless there's a reliable source available for the baby-show (because self-published sources like Flickr aren't accepted), then the information will have to stay out. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 07:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results for week 2, update for week 3.[edit]

I've done some very rough work updating the page for week 2 and week 3. However, it was a very rough update, with little detail. Please feel free to change and improve what I've done. I'll continue work on it tomorrow if no one gets to it first. Jozal (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings[edit]

Yesterday, I included the ratings from the BARB website. However, someone has changed these to DigitalSpy, although I believe BARB to be more reliable. However, if experienced editors would like to contribute, then please do so. I feel that BARB are much more reliable and have a good validity, whereas DigitalSpy doesn't. However, I'd like to know which source to use so I can therefore proceed editing the ratings? 86.134.230.47 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use the ratings from BARB, which is the official organisation that collects and compiles audience ratings. I'm not sure DigitalSpy get their info from, but I'd use BARB all the same. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 19:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with BARB is that you cannot see historical ratings. So BARB is correct for "current" time, but very soon goes quickly out of date. Is there some other way to verify the data past the seasons of the show? Many thanks, δ²_(Talk) 12:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should get the figures from BARB until an even more reliable source materialises. 81.132.143.163 (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I don't think the ratings for You're Fired should be included in this article - I propose moving this to the YF article itself. Seaserpent⁸⁵ 04:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - good idea. Many thanks, δ²_(Talk) 10:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, I included the You're Fired ratings due to not knowing their was a separate article. However, I must add that the new set of ratings from BARB have been released... it is #1 on BBC Two Weekly Rankings as 3.09 million people watched it.81.151.136.248 (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly results table[edit]

Not surprised that my edits yesterday were reverted, but there is no easy way to tell how often any particular candidate has been on the winning team, without looking up and down each column to see if there is a B in a square of the same colour. Any suggestions as to how this could be done while keeping the table reasonably clean? I had put an 'L' in the squares for losing team members but apparently that was too cluttered. Perhaps have a different colour for winning or losing team rather than Ignite/Empire, and a new row saying which team won? I think it is more useful to know whether a candidate won or lost than whether they were on Empire or Ignite.Anguswalker (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now changed the table's colours and added an extra row. Now the winning team is always pink and the losing team always purple. You can now tell at a glance how often any individual has won and how often each team has won when you couldn't before, and I don't think it is too cluttered. Happy to alter the previous series' tables in the same way if desired. Anguswalker (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - Hi Anguswalker, many thanks for your contribution. Historically, all the series weekly results tables have been determined by team. Now you are suggesting to determine results by winning or losing. IMHO the table is a summary of the events that occurred. Looking at your new way of colouring confuses how you look at the table. I am sorry but I will revert your changes until there is a consensus about changing colours for ALL the series tables. If there is strong support for the change then by all means make the changes. Many thanks, δ²_(Talk) 11:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it isn't clear, my point above was: trying to view the winning and loosing team AND those brought back to the boardroom AND the candidate that was fired AND the team they belonged too was just too much information to put into one table. Also, why do you want to see the winning and losing team at a glance with the colours? Is it not good enough to see the team members who were brought back to the boardroom - does that not tell you at a glance who won or who lost? Many thanks, δ²_(Talk) 13:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to discuss. If you want to know e.g. how often the eventual winner was in the winning or losing team (and surely his/her form is more important than the name of the team each week), then it is not possible to work out at a glance. That is my point, really, but it's not that important. Anguswalker (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Elimination Chart is so ugly, it use to be great - they'd be in blue and pink 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 other ones? 86.174.155.62 (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People editing the page who seem to already know the result...[edit]

I'm not sure if anyone else is aware, but before the most recent episode at least 2 people edited the article with the correct person who was fired. Admittedly, they both could be guessing, but they would have lucky guesses and surely if they were just guesses they wouldn't have straight up edited the article... Reckon some people know the results already? I certainly know one of the results that hasn't been yet... —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Xando (talk • contribs) 21:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the result? I am sure there are people who know the results, but they are bound by gagging orders surely? Any edits to a wiki article need to be correctly referenced so any "guessing" is not permitted and liable to be reverted by other users. As long as a reliable, linkable, and independently verifiable reference can be provided then the fact is allowed to remain. Many thanks, δ²_(Talk) 08:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The programmes were filmed some months ago (other than the final, AFAIK) so it is certainly possible to know the result - possibly by seeing a later episode being filmed and working out who isn't there. Anguswalker (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know a result because of a line of like 3 people who know one of the candidates. I live very near one of them. Admittedly, I can't prove it :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Xando (talk • contribs) 17:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week 6 prize was a dinner of beef with truffles not beef truffles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.47.169 (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eek, sorry![edit]

I messed up when trying to update the table and I don't know how to revert! This wasn't anything malicious, and I would thank someone if they could revert it for me. Sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorsha (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I've undone your mistake, but the table still needs updating. (Also moving this topic to the bottom of the talk page.) Jozal (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't worry we all make mistakes, just use the preview button before you save your edits next time. :) Jozal (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected[edit]

I've semi'd this article for a fortnight due to the constant strange-IP-edit/revert/strange-IP-edit/revert cycle I can see in the history. IP editor, you can use {{editsemiprotected}} on this page along with a justification of your edits and someone will add them. Otherwise, you're not welcome on the page for at least the next fortnight. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. I was going to ask for protection but you seemed to get here first. Jozal ^(talk) 11:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replacements[edit]

Could somebody replace the following. First, on col1 replace Left Show with Result. Next, on can-week add whether they were hired, runner up or fired before the result. Eg Anita, Fired Week 1. Finally, removed the legends on can-stat and legend examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.168.116 (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the table is fine as it is. Jozal ^(talk) 12:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]