Talk:The Apprentice (British TV series) series 14

New performance chart
Before the new series begins, I have developed a new style of performance chart I would like to see implemented this page and all previous series' pages. I experimented with a few different designs and this was by far the best one I came up with. I have been bold and implemented this into two of the previous series' articles, as well as this one, with the intention of completing the rest shortly. This is how the series 13 version looks:

This format is incredibly simple by comparison to the current one, yet conveys exactly the same information. The first change is for the candidate heading to span two rows, rather than the task heading sitting incorrectly above it. However, this change should be made even if the existing tables are kept.

What makes this so much better than the current table is the simplicity. There are only five different letters, and it's one colour per letter, unlike the previous table layout which has different colours for "IN" and "FIRED" – the first bullet point of MOS:COLOUR says "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information". Therefore the previous table does not conform to this. I know it is a guideline, not a rule, but it is a guideline we should follow. We have the means to and we have no reason not to.

The table conveys exactly the same information as before, but with absolutely no confusion, using 5 letters and 5 colours, down from 8 words/abbreviations and 10 colours. The use of single letters rather than words and abbreviations makes it far easier and less confusing to read at a glance. Furthermore, I am planning to make a template for the key, so that it need not be copied into every article.

The project manager is bold, while everybody else is regular, and the background colour remains the same for the project manager, so again it is far simpler and less confusing. Remember that being project manager does not have any bearing on the presentation of information. Task 12 uses the usual W / L letters and colours. It is the last task and therefore self-explanatory they won the whole series, and this is also explained sufficiently in several other parts of the article (a table like this is only supposed give an overview).

I am naturally disappointed, but understanding, to see my edit to this article was immediately reversed. However, I am here to discuss it. Sr 88,  talk. 22:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * While there is no reason not to have the "Candidate" column span two rows, unfortunately there are issues in this table setup:

GUtt01 (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Using BOLD to highlight Project Managers is not helpful; in the current table setup, BOLD is used to highlight PMs, those brought back to the Boardroom, and those Fired
 * The colour scheme in this table is not very helpful in identifying key factors of progress; that used in the current table setup focus on identifying the winning and losing PMs, who got fired, who was brought back, who lost, and the winner and runner-up amongst the finalists.
 * Using letters is not clear; while "IN" might have some issues, the use of words in others provide a clear outline of result for a task, while "BR" is used to clarify candidates brought back to the boardroom.


 * I respectfully disagree.
 * Using bold exclusively for the PM is very helpful. It is very distinct and easy to understand which results are in bold. There is absolutely no need to use it for "boardroom" and "fired", as these are indicated by the text and colour anyway. The old table setup makes unnecessary use of bold. My table uses it in a clearer and more sparing manner. Using bold to highlight "boardroom" and "fired" is not helpful.
 * The colour scheme should be supplementary only. The letters are used to identify key factors of progress. The old table is more confusing and therefore makes it harder to pick out key factors. Not only does it not clearly distinguish between winning team and losing team (IN and IN, see MOS:COLOUR) as well as the PM being fired (FIRED and FIRED, both bold), it's also worth pointing out if you want key factors, this is far clearer. Bold for PM, B for boardroom, F for fired, L for lost, W for won. How much clearer can it get? There's nothing clear about having 8 different words and 10 different colours to tell you that – and relying entirely on colour means you miss key bits of information (again, MOS:COLOUR).
 * While I disagree about the letters (I think a single identifier is far far easier to read at a glance), we could change it so that abbreviations are used. However I fail to see how BR is better than B, IN and IN is better than W and L, FIRED is better than F. And if you are still confused about single letter abbreviations, that is literally what the key is for.
 * While I am here, I would like to point out that the sub-heading should be "Performance chart", not "Performance Chart". This is the correct format for Wikipedia headings.
 * Sr 88,  talk . 23:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * One of the other layouts I experimented with uses the existing colours for the project manager:


 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"

!rowspan="2"|Candidate !colspan="12"|Task !style="width:15pt;"| 1 !style="width:15pt;"| 2 !style="width:15pt;"| 3 !style="width:15pt;"| 4 !style="width:15pt;"| 5 !style="width:15pt;"| 6 !style="width:15pt;"| 7 !style="width:15pt;"| 8 !style="width:15pt;"| 9 !style="width:15pt;"| 10 !style="width:15pt;"| 11 !style="width:15pt;"| 12 !James !Sarah !Michaela !Elizabeth !Joanna !Jade !Harrison !Bushra !Charles !Anisa !Andrew !Sajan !Sarah-Jayne !Ross !Siobhan !Elliot !Jeff !Danny
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:pink;"|B
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:orange;"|B
 * style="background:cornflowerblue;"|W
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:cornflowerblue;"|W
 * style="background:cornflowerblue;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:orange;"|B
 * style="background:pink;"|B
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:cornflowerblue;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:orange;"|B
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:cornflowerblue;"|W
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:tomato;"|F
 * style="background:darkgrey;"|
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:pink;"|B
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:cornflowerblue;"|W
 * style="background:pink;"|B
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:pink;"|B
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:tomato;"|F
 * style="background:darkgrey;"|
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:pink;"|B
 * style="background:cornflowerblue;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:pink;"|B
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:cornflowerblue;"|W
 * style="background:tomato;"|F
 * style="background:darkgrey;"|
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:cornflowerblue;"|W
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:magenta;"|F
 * colspan="2" style="background:darkgrey;"|
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:pink;"|B
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:pink;"|B
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:cornflowerblue;"|W
 * style="background:tomato;"|F
 * colspan="2" style="background:darkgrey;"|
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:cornflowerblue;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:tomato;"|F
 * colspan="3" style="background:darkgrey;"|
 * style="background:pink;"|B
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:pink;"|B
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:magenta;"|F || colspan="4" style="background:darkgrey;"|
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:tomato;"|F || colspan="4" style="background:darkgrey;"|
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:cornflowerblue;"|W
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:pink;"|B
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:tomato;"|F || colspan="4" style="background:darkgrey;"|
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:orange;"|B
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:tomato;"|F || colspan="5" style="background:darkgrey;"|
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:magenta;"|F || colspan="6" style="background:darkgrey;"|
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:orange;"|B
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:tomato;"|F || colspan="7" style="background:darkgrey;"|
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:white;"|W
 * style="background:magenta;"|F || colspan="8" style="background:darkgrey;"|
 * style="background:pink;"|B
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:tomato;"|F || colspan="9" style="background:darkgrey;"|
 * style="background:#FFE5B4;"|L
 * style="background:tomato;"|F || colspan="10" style="background:darkgrey;"|
 * style="background:magenta;"|F || colspan="11" style="background:darkgrey;"|
 * }
 * }


 * This maintains the benefit of using colour seeing key details like who was the PM, while keeping only the PM bold so it can be identified not just through colour (MOS:COLOUR, again). PM results have the same lettering as everybody else, minimising confusion.
 * I'd like to point out while I am here, that putting "HIRED" for the winning finalist is not only unnecessary, it is also incorrect as they are not hired and have not been for eight years. Sr88,  talk . 14:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest suspending this discussion, pertaining to a currently active AfD on this article and several others covering the series of The Apprentice. GUtt01 (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hidden performance chart
I hid the performance chart, as no episodes have been broadcast yet. This was, like my other edits, immediately reverted with no discussion started. The sole purpose of the performance chart is to give a summary of the results of each task/episode. At the time of writing no episodes have been broadcast and therefore it should not exist until any have. Just because it is within a week of broadcast is not a reason to display it. Sr 88,  talk. 23:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Team names?
Unless I missed it, there was no outright declaration of team names from the early deliberations to the boardroom. Can anyone shed light if it's been confirmed? 82.23.197.204 (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't catch any either. Matt14451 (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if team names are revealed, they will not be added in to this article, except within a Series Overview section - we are not to go back to old habits with these articles. GUtt01 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, they aren't useful. Matt14451 (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Episodes
Hello everyone,

Apologies if this is something I stupidly missed or whatever, but was there a reason for changing "episodes"? The past series have always had an in-depth analysis of what happened in each episode whereas the page for this series seems to have changed format so as to not allow that (example - Series 13 had the task, task review, result and winner etc. for episode one, while this series only has "Sixteen new candidates begin their work..." as the start of the episode one description).

Just curious if there was any reason for the change because I liked the way the in-depth descriptions/episode summaries used to be, these ones feel rather restrictive by comparison.

Ta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:D881:D300:553:374B:DAD1:208 (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, the discussion can be found here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Apprentice_(UK_series_thirteen). It was decided that the old format included too much WP:OR and was too in-depth for a general interest encyclopedia. The information for the old series' can still be viewed in the pages histories so feel free to move them to a Wikia. Matt14451 (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone already did that while the AfD was still in progress - The Apprentice Wikia.--DaveJB (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Episode descriptions
Where have the episode descriptions come from? They are unsourced and resemble advertisements more than encyclopedic writing. does not tell the readers crucial information like who got fired – indeed, implies no one actually got fired – while episode two's description is no better (who came up with the line about candidates trading ?) The new descriptions are a lot less useful than the brief episode summaries that used to be standard. OZOO (t) (c) 13:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free to change them. Episode summaries should be in a WP editors own words and written from a neutral POV. There shouldn't be summaries for future episodes as they won't have been written from someone watching the episode per WP:TVPLOT. You can see who got fired in the performance table above. Matt14451 (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Created it, reverted. Apparently telling the readers anything that happened in the episode constitutes "scene-by-scene" details. Just leave it up to them to guess, is it? OZOO (t) (c) 15:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , they're not supposed to detail exact scenes from the show; Short Sums are not designed like that. They should, in all sense, "summarize the core storyline(s)" - or in this case, core elements of the episode. They "should not offer a scene-by-scene sequence of everything that happens, or attempt to evaluate, interpret or analyze it" - in this case, it shouldn't tell readers who got fired, if that is covered elsewhere (say the "Performance chart"). Episode summaries are based on those from the official website, but not copied from them. And like Matt14451 says, they can be changed if they can be improved, but consider WP:TVPLOT when doing so. GUtt01 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What a load of rubbish. Show me one bit in WP:TVPLOT that says the ultimate ending of the episode should not be detailed. Show me where it says we can't tell the readers who won the episode and why. Highlighting a couple of key moments – and being specific about it – is not a "scene-by-scene sequence". OZOO (t) (c) 15:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Because this is not a Fiction TV Series - it's a Non-Fiction series. GUtt01 (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OZOO (t) (c) 15:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If we were writing out the episode itself in its own article, it could provide such details, provided it follows what WP:TVPLOT details. But we're writing out short sums, and these do not detail episodes extensively. GUtt01 (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying what happens is not "extensive". OZOO (t) (c) 15:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is being extensive. You want to make a summary that provides a scene-by-scene breakdown. Short Sums need to make a brief summary of the episode!! GUtt01 (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My "extensive" summary is a full fifteen characters longer than the "brief" summary that is there now - still well within the 200 word limit advised by WP:TVPLOT. OZOO (t) (c) 16:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But in the way you did it, it's not neutral in tone - you basically wrote it out to favour fans of the programme, not general audience that come in to learn about an article. When games, TV shows, books, and anything of the sort, whether fiction or non-fiction is made, such fan-based favouritism is best suited to a specialised Wiki for such information. Wikipedia is generalised source of information on subjects. I don't believe in writing it out in the way that you did, because I don't believe its in a neutral tone. GUtt01 (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can I ask please for a specific example of what is not neutral? I fail to see how saying that the girls lost and Sarah was fired is either unneutral or not of interest to the general audience. We already say this in the performance chart - why be coy in the prose episode descriptions? OZOO (t) (c) 17:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't really, because truth be told, I don't know where to find an example of an episode Short Sum for a non-fiction programme. That said, all I am doing is making use of what is on the official website as best as possible, "as long as only basic descriptions are given" per WP:TVPLOT. GUtt01 (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean to say that the summary should not note if there was more than one firing - I did a summary for a Series 10 article that made it clear that such a situation occurred - nor if there was anything notable occurred - again, I made a note for a Series 11 episode about someone's leaving via a original wording of the episode's summary on the official website. But we can't give specific information; it goes against WP:TVPLOT.GUtt01 (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - WP:TVPLOT OZOO (t) (c) 15:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That applies to a full episode summary - Short Sums in Episode Table templates should not follow that line. GUtt01 (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OZOO (t) (c) 15:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * May I ask why you used that template? That sounds like a childish response.GUtt01 (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I used that template because I don't believe that short sums should not outline all of an episode's important events, and was implying you should provide a source that says they should not. OZOO (t) (c) 16:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And I could ask the same thing to you about where it says that a Short Sum should outline all of an episode's important events in an extensive manner.GUtt01 (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Can I please request one example of how my description is, in your words, ""not neutral" and "favouring fans of the show."? Seems to me that keeping what happens hush-hush is worse for non-fans. OZOO (t) (c) 19:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If this was a fictional show, a drama or such, a Short Sum would give out key plot points for an episode. What is there in The Apprentice episode we disagree on, that is a key point to explain in the summary, other than what the task is, and what candidates faced as issues, what strategy they chose, that keeps the description basic?GUtt01 (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The question was what in my description is "not neutral", but never mind. Who wins and who gets fired is the key plot point of the episode, so that should be included, yes? OZOO (t) (c) 20:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but you would have to cite a source for such information, otherwise all you'll be doing is sticking to what caused problems with these articles in the first place - adding in Original Research. GUtt01 (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also when it says, it says "May". "May" - it doesn't say they "do" require. GUtt01 (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Should have just said the problem was sourcing, I'd have added them right up. OZOO (t) (c) 20:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But this, in all sense, is a grey area, because we don't really know what is the right thing to do with Non-Fiction shows. Somone. Even if you follow WP:TVPLOT, there is obviously an issue about this. Someone really needs to clear this up, to make certain there is no confusion and mistakes being made. GUtt01 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Make an RFC then, if you want someone else to comment. Still waiting to know what in my edit is "not neutral" and "favouring fans of the show", btw. OZOO (t) (c) 20:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What is truly encyclopedic about it? GUtt01 (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Seemingly all of it, since you can't find a reason why it isn't. I thought the problem was neutrality, anyway? Or lack of citation? Or extensiveness? OZOO (t) (c) 22:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay - It's not necessary to repeat the results, because we got two tables that can state the progress of each candidate, with one of these also able to supply info on which members were on the winning team. As for specific details, it seems awkward to do so; I'm not sure using a newspaper article that made live updates from the viewpoint of a reporter on an episode could be considered reliable or neutral. GUtt01 (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Because of the problem we have here, I put up a talk subject over here on Wikipedia's Prohect Television to get some clarification made regarding Short Sums for Non-Fiction programmes. GUtt01 (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Joining the choir of mourners
Yet another series of 'The Apprentice uk' and I find myself in the talk section of the corresponding article yet again. The well-established description format did seem way more crisp to me, agreeing with you guys. Last year, the 'Criticism/Controversy' section was amputated, now we have minimalistic episode descriptions. I do like the new performance chart, though. All those rationalisations just start squeezing the fun out of it, why not allow some context in the descriptions, especially when someone like OZOO is writing them with great enthusiasm? I am convinced that it's possible to write about details, the banters, nuances, strategic moves while remaining 'neutral'. Lots of references to intricate guidelines, and lengthy discussions about standards happening in a community of experiences Wiki writers. It's remarkable about how much gets done, massive investments into this encyclopedia, you deserve gratitude. On the other hand, you might loose future editors and shoo away readers, protecting a holy grail like the guy in the Indiana Jones movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.62.0.108 (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with writing fan-fiction regarding the results of each of the episodes on the Apprentice Wikia, where that sort of stuff is encouraged. eeveeman (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As eeveeman, anything that favours fans of the show is best suited towards a wiki devoted to the programme. Here, the information must be of a general nature, proven to encyclopedic, and critically must not consist of Original Research. We had an AfD for this article, and several linked to it, where the opinion was that there was too much over-inflation of OR in them, that had to be cut out. GUtt01 (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * See this wikia for more: https://apprentice.wikia.com/wiki/The_Apprentice_Wiki.79.77.194.174 (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

What happened to this?

 * Original Air Date: 4 October 2017
 * Team 1:
 * Team 2:
 * Task:
 * Task Review:
 * Result:
 * Winner:
 * Reward:
 * Brought into the boardroom:
 * Fired:
 * '''You're Fired Panel:
 * Notes:

And not just for this series, but for all of them.

--31.205.43.216 (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There's been a general consensus that that layout was unsuitable for these articles anymore. Check out this for details about this -> Talk:The_Apprentice_(UK_series_thirteen) GUtt01 (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

No, don't direct me to another article. Tell me on this page; tell me on this page, and tell me directly (meaning, just get to the point instead of wind-bagging). --193.61.240.188 (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're not willing to take a look at the linked Talk Page, then you're wasting time asking for a direct answer here - that Talk Page is the DIRECT ANSWER!! GUtt01 (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm doing the right thing, not used to adding information to Talk Pages. I want to make a comment that I agree with the poster who asked "What happened to this?" and gave an example of the details. I remember pages having those detailed information, now they have been dumbed down to less information and making them sounds like a plot summary of a fictional show. The information more detailed, you could see the difference between each teams, what were the reasons for the losing team having lost the task, and so on. How much did each team made, how many orders did each team made. That information is now missing, it's like withholding information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4880:B01:81B1:7C33:2E4F:CF50 (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The argument is that such detailed information was considered to be over-inflated Original Research, and the general consensus was that the old format of these articles was no longer acceptable. The change that was made was to revert all these articles to featuring an Episode List table format with Short Sums instead. GUtt01 (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2018
MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Under The Final Five Episode: As this year's series of The Apprentice draws closer to its finale, this special episode takes a look at profiling the true story behind the five remaining candidates. Discussing their backgrounds, experiences, personality, and strengths and weaknesses, are a selection of each candidate's friends, family and colleagues, as well as Lord Sugar's aides, Claude Littner and Karren Brady.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Baby miss fortune 12:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Try the request again, but use the BBC's official website for the citation. They should have something to back that up.GUtt01 (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)