Talk:The Apprentice (British TV series) series 13

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2017
Well, how do I do that then? --193.61.240.43 (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:EDITREQ. --Yamla (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Jeff is out. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b098vx3v.

92.20.207.49 (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not an edit request. Note that this talk page is for improving the article, not for general discussion. --Yamla (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This should have been made elsewhere, really. In any case, let this matter be closed as of today. GUtt01 (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * He was proposing a update, Jeff's sacking was not listed at the time.79.77.205.157 (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * His request came in, after the article was updated with the information on Jeff's firing. There are quite some astute wikipedians here who are quick on the ball to provide such information. In any case, this matter is CLOSED. GUtt01 (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

List of Candidates Article
Have we got an article set up consisting of the candidates for this series, as has been done for every other series? GUtt01 (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Pitchboard
Could we mention the "Siimon" pichboard. Lord Sugar hated it's lackluster image, spelling error, grammar error, poor logo and implosive spirit.79.77.205.157 (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I will review the episode in regards to that, and see if it should be included in Week 3's Notes. GUtt01 (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

It is seen here-. Trish pt7 (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Mystery
Where did the section 'Criticism and Controversy' go? Did it get deleted, and if so, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.9.28 (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You can see the edit history here. --Yamla (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like some bloke hid it away using 'hidden text', meaning that it don't [sic!] show in the article. I'll probably have to create a wikipedia account in order to access the edit page and see his reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.190.234 (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * For your attention, the information in this section was deleted by me, due to a Wikipedian raising concerns over what should be in this section for each series that has been aired, over on the talk page for The Apprentice (UK). Their concern was over the fact that such information likely did not follow guidelines on various areas, after I myself questioned over the content earlier this year. They stated, in their own words:

"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."

So for this reason, this section will remain hidden until there is information has a genuine impact on the show in terms of it being either criticism against it, or controversy that is caused by it. I have already made the effort to clean up such sections in other series as a result of seeing what this Wikipedian replied to my question. GUtt01 (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It's consistent and reasonable, yet I'd like to add some points to the bigger picture:
 * Individual view: Right to forget, Privacy etc. (Detail: It's interesting how those values are interpreted differently, depending on the country (e.g. UK/Switzerland). Both accused and victims might get published with their full name and picture (Further material ), or even the nationality is omitted. By signing up for The Apprentice, which is voluntary, the candidates turn into public figures, where different standards should apply.
 * Context of the show: Someone reading this article in 100 years might get the impression that the contestants really do represent pristine aspiring entrepreneurs, which would be put into context with the 'Controversies' section. The reader could then decide whether The Apprentice is/was an entertainment programme or an application process.
 * Value of gossip: To historians, ancient rubbish dumps turned out to be just as yielding sources as elaborate cave paintings. Sociologists might want to analyse today's customs. Why not preserve this digital gossip? Might be similar to Roman graffitis in Pompej. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.9.54 (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate your reasoning, the policies of Wikipedia have to be adhered to, and this, I'm afraid, may not sway others to the same belief, especially if this changes Wikipedia's path from being an online encyclopedia, to something else - a gossip centre, a rumour mill, and so forth. So apologies, but this matter is now CLOSED. GUtt01 (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Criticism & Controversy - Any proper ones, conforming to Wikipedia policies, been found?
Has anyone found anything that conforms to Wikipedia's policies, without breaking them, such as WP:ALIVE, WP:NEWSORG and WP:NOTSCANDAL, per chance? Because if nothing is found, then I'll go ahead and delete that section, within the HIDDEN TXT it was put into. GUtt01 (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah, I ain't found none. (sic!) There's no hope to stop you on your crusade against completeness, but you could at least leave it in the HIDDEN TEXT since it doesn't do any harm there.


 * It's not a crusade against completeness, its more a belief that if any information of this sort is found, that it complies with Wikipedia policies. If no such information does turn up, and is unlikely to be the case in the future, the section won't be ever formed in this article. GUtt01 (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

New performance chart
I implemented a new style performance chart, however this edit was immediately reversed with no discussion started. I have started one at Talk:The Apprentice (UK series fourteen). Sr 88, talk. 22:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Episode table
As there's been continued edit warring between myself and others I figured I'd save another day of reverting and come here- I don't object to the whole episode sections being replaced with tables - these sections are over-detailed and so I agree with these being replaced by a table, However what I do object to is the whole lot being replaced by the table below with no episode summaries, It's common that with all TV programme's there's always short and concise episode summaries,

I also agree that the sections fail OR and others but in my eyes everything should be condensed like the article at The Apprentice (UK series one) "Dave.... Why don't you do it then?" - Easier said than done, I'd mess it up more than anything so would prefer leaving it to someone more competent but at the same time I object to the episode summaries being removed, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 00:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You were disruptive by reverting edits and two users reverted you. Edit summaries can be added after the table is added and unnecessary information removed. We could have just copied the task information or similar for now. The page has now been protected because of you so it can't be fixed. Matt14451 (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You were disruptive by edit warring and changing the article without any sort of discussion or consensus, Not my fault the article was protected!, Well you can fix it when it's done cant you!. Davey 2010 Talk 11:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem here was that you failed to use common sense to consider possibly adding in the summaries yourself - you could have loaded up a separate page containing a previous version of the article with the fan-based information to help make the summaries. I appreciate that you respect and understand about the changes, but we could have avoided all this aggrevation by simply using our heads and common sense to rectify the tables with the missing data. You seen what I did for the articles covering the first series (and hopefully the second series, since I changed that today), and I didn't have any issue using what was there, even if I had to look over a previous version in the article's history, along with the episode lists in the BBC's official website for the programme. GUtt01 (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Reread the above message where I clearly stated "I'd mess it up more than anything so would prefer leaving it to someone more competent", If the summaries were shorter sure it'd be an easy copy & paste job but this requires more than that, Perhaps if common sense was used (ie you both coming here the moment you were reverted) all of this could've been avoided. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to write edit summaries then that's still no excuse to revert edits. 2 people reverted you, no-one else supported you so you were disruptive. You could still have copy-pasted the task information as a temporary solution instead of just reverting. Matt14451 (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it is because like I said I objected to the removal and I didn't think these were going to be added in - If your intentions were to add them in at a later date then you should've stated that 3-4-5 reverts ago ....or better still used the talkpage, I disagree I don't believe I was disruptive at all and infact I believe it's the other way round but either way "You're disruptive", "No, you're disruptive" isn't helping here,
 * I wasn't removing the content so It wasn't my job to paste them,
 * Going forward you're more than welcome to include the tables providing episode summaries are included, Have a nice day. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We're not going to agree regarding who was disruptive, we've both added warning to each others talk pages and both reverted them. Regardless of if you pasted the episode tables you should have tried to improve the article rather than just reverting. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting - "Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reversion?". Matt14451 (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)