Talk:The Apprentice (British TV series) series 4

Weekly results table
I've rejigged our existing table into a tidier, more toned down version - and wikilinked relevent headings, should be a lot more user friendly. Just to give you an idea, take a look at how the third series' table would look here. Let me know if anything could do with being changed, of course :) Sea serpent 85 17:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * dear god, why are people insistent on jumping the gun and trying to put in tenuous information? impatience? surely it is best to wait until next week to update info about next week? as of today, it still cannot be confirmed/verified what teams everyone is on, and yet the team colours have been re-allocated. please can this be removed, as i already did that this week! Delta squared undefined 02:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd agree, however this is verifiable - look at refs 16 and 17, both make mention of a boys' team and a girls' team. Also the preview clips at the end of the show last week show that the teams are split by gender again. No matter how hard you try, this info will get added - you can't stop people adding to a wiki (a few of us experienced that throughout the last series). In the end it doesn't matter when the information goes in, as long as it's verifiable... in the end all these disputes are irrelevant when it comes to the end of the series and we have to do all the tidying up. Sea serpent 85 11:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, point taken. Btw, I wasn't making reference to your changes δ ² ( Talk ) 18:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate bios
At the moment all mentions of candidates are directed towards the relevant sections of List of The Apprentice candidates (UK), which are empty. I think one of the first things that needs doing is adding a bried paragraph about each, rewritten from the numerous sources available. On a side note, look at the huge numbers of views this article is getting at the moment, it's growing each day! Sea serpent 85 18:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice! And yes, brief paragraphs.  I'll have to look into what sources to use Fritzpoll (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced information
The continued addition of Alex as PM is not verifiable, hence I've been reverting it. Whilst it may be the case that he is, nothing in the bbc website video states he is. I've nothing against spoilers as long as they are verifiable. Sea serpent 85 13:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been doing similar, and I notice that the article is now semi-protected. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I requested semi-protection earlier - will expire at 10.30pm, by which point we should already have a decent version in place. Sea serpent 85 18:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've similarly requested semi-protection on the list of candidates because of the vandalism issues Fritzpoll (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected the page until after The Apprentice: You're Fired! tonight. Also, it's verifiable that Alex is PM now... Stifle (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Same teams
I notice from the episode grid that we are assuming no one is going to change teams in week 2. What is the source for this information? Kidburla (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * not guilty of making the edit, but SAS indicated that the teams were to be split boy/girl, and whoever has made this edit clearly assumes this will be perpetuated. Tat said, it seems to be an unverified edit and should probably be reverted.  As I'm off to bed now, feel free to do it yourself :)  Fritzpoll (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The preview clips at the end of the episode and at the end of You're Fired show the team splits. However, one could argue that it's not explicit in that fact... so feel free to remove the information if you can't find an appropriate source for it. Sea serpent 85 23:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It does seem picky...but I guess that, as verifiability is going to be our watchword every Wednesday for the next few months.... Fritzpoll (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully my edit of the episode grid is adequate? many thanks Deltasquared (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Results Table
I think that the table showing the weekly results should be changed to look the the one on the Apprentice USA page as I think it looks much better than the UK table. Does anyone agree?? --Mikey-is-lost (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think the one we have here looks much cleaner - I'm basing that on the weekly results for the first US series. There is so much clutter in that one that I can't make head nor tail of it, whereas I can see quite clearly with this one what is happenign from week to week Fritzpoll (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yehh...I suppose you have a point. its just the kind of like letters that reely get on my nerves and the colour for a certain team. cos in the usa one it has the team name --Mikey-is-lost (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a fair point - up to personal taste, I suppose - let's see if anyone else supports your change. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the USA one and I much prefer the one we have at the moment, theirs is too confusing. Kidburla (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Challenges
The challenges section has all the weeks displayed and currently most of them just say "unknown". I think this is just pointless having this on the page as it has no purpose and it does not tell anyone any information. Does anyone think the same??? --Mikey-is-lost (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree and have removed all the blank weeks everytime they've been added. Sea serpent 85 08:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

References for Weekly epiosodes
Just a thought, are references/citatations really needed for these? the reason I ask is because currently the references used are from Radio Times and these are likely to go dead very quickly. Also, if the episode has been viewed, then surely there is no reason to cite souces for the information? as per: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Seeing as episodes of TV series can be easily verified by watching the episode in question, I see no reason to have these citations. What does anyone else think? I am considering removing them. Many thanks  δ ² ( Talk ) 16:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. People are beginning to lose the plot when it comes to citing things that are common knowledge. Before long, we'll have to reference things such as 'The sky is blue'. 92.236.140.63 (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not that people are "losing the plot". Sometimes details, such as the nature of the task, are added before an episode airs, in which case a reference is needed. Then when the episode airs the references tend to just remain in place. If you want to delete references that are now redundant that's fine by me. Matt 11:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.230.226 (talk)
 * I've now removed all the Radio Times references and other associated references for the individual episodes. This is in line with the formatting of Series One. Looking back through the formats of previous series, I also notice that Series Four is becoming rather verbose in the descriptions of each task. I think that it needs to be cut down soon, anyone else agree with this too?  δ ² ( Talk ) 19:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the task descriptions we have at the moment are OK in terms of length, but we probably don't want them to get too much longer. Matt 00:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.12.179 (talk)

I'd just like to add that sourcing information is useful. As Matt says, we are not 'losing the plot' here - but people insist on putting information into this article before the episode airs. To do so, they'll need a source. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * True Fritzpol, I take the point about referencing before the episode has aired; I was questioning the validity of their presence after the episode had aired, seeing as no one else had removed them. Just thought I'd help :-) δ ² ( Talk ) 17:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, once the episode has aired, I absolutely agree! :)  Fritzpoll (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As a follow up to the above, I have carried out the "citation cleaning regime" on ALL the other seasons now :-)  δ ² ( Talk ) 19:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Format of Apprentice series articles
I have now fully updated all four series of the Apprentice UK (One; Two; Three; Four), and have standardised the formatting. This was be cause there seemed to be a mixture of formatting across the series, with Series One and Four being most similar. I thought for everyone's information I would list the format below, enabling clearer article editing. Please remember punctuation is extremely important, especially full stops at the end of sentences!

The Challenges format:


 * Project managers: List of team leaders, in alpha order of team names; i.e. Alpha then Renaissance.
 * Task: Brief summary of task.
 * Result: Abstract summary of task events and the performance of both teams.
 * Winner: Name of winning team.
 * Reward: Brief description of reward given.
 * Brought into the boardroom: List of eligible candidates, starting with team leader of losing team, then alpha order of other candidates.
 * Who gets fired: Candidate name, followed by brief reason.
 * Notes: Space for any extra information that does not fall into above categories. However, this is not carte blanche for trivia!

Just to explain, alpha order is used to ensure neutral POV, and a set of standard formatting also ensures this. Previous series had biased POV's inserted where there was no previous structure. Weeks 11 and 12 have slightly different formatting, but I shall get to that when the time comes.  δ ² ( Talk ) 20:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is good work, thanks for doing this. Seaserpent and I have been talking about trying to have a big push to drive all the series articles up to a uniform GA status and this will certainly help.  How do you feel about a big push, either now or once series four is over? Fritzpoll (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yep, I'm definitely up for a push once the series has completed. You will have to guide me though on what constitutes a GA status for articles though please!  δ ² ( Talk ) 08:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe - yeah, I wasn't sure to start with either. We'll talk about this in a few weeks. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As an addition to formatting, I have introduced a new week section, "*Team re-shuffle:". This will appear (where appropriate) above "*Project managers:", as this is the order in which the event takes place. Also to clarify, where "*Brought into the boardroom:" section is, the project manager is put first, then the other 2 candidates in alpha order.  δ ² ( Talk ) 20:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, the series is over - time to start the improvement drive?Caissa&#39;s DeathAngel (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Episode titles
Are those 'titles' ('Foul play afoot', etc.) the actual official titles for the episodes or have people just coined them themselves?Stephen Shaw (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've brought up the issue of these before - they aren't official episode names, they are the titles of each recap on the official website. I think the issues arises from the fact that Series One had official episode title names, whereas the following three series haven't. I think we need to establish some sort of standard for these as it looks a bit messy at the moment. Sea serpent 85 14:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * From an official point of view, there is no name for any of the series episodes, with the exception of Series One. Therefore I am inclined to remove the names once the series is over, and a consensus agreed upon before doing anything else.  δ ² ( Talk ) 09:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'd go along with that. Series Two looks a lot less messy without the title names. Sea serpent 85 11:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed my mind, and decided to clear up all the series to ensure standard formatting. I have gone over them with a fine tooth comb now, and I think I am right in saying that formatting is complete for now. anyone else care to comment/express their views? Regards,  δ ² ( Talk ) 20:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

With regret....
Whenever SAS fires someone whom he thinks did not do a lot wrong, he utters the phrase "with regret, you're fired". I have noticed that in some of the epsiode synopses when this occurs, this has been included in the 'Who Was Fired?' section but not in all. There should be some consistency on this matter - either have it for everytime SAS has said it, or not at all. I personally think it should included as it shows that SAS was in a real dilemma of who to sack, and that the decision was pretty close. It also reflects on the candidate and allows them to leave with their head held high. 92.236.140.63 (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There is also confusion regarding Jennifer Maguire's firing. In the main show SAS did not fire her with regret, but in the You're Fired show, SAS clearly says 'with regret'. 92.236.140.63 (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree: Hi there, I agree that this matter requires consistency but not that "with regret" should be included. This is non-notable fact in itself, and does not add to the educational value of the article. As per WP:NOT and WP:NPOV, this is not a place to support the dignity of the candidate concerned as it needs to remain from a neutral POV and consensus.  δ ² ( Talk ) 08:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, ditto what Delta said - the show is highly edited, so we probably never get to see exaclty what is said to each candidate. All we know for certain is that they were fired. Sea serpent 85 16:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

'With regret' tells the reader this, but in a concise, succint manner. 92.236.140.63 (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point regarding editing (see below), but I do think that the matter is notable, as it shows to the reader that SAS felt the candidate did not do a lot wrong in the tasks, only that he/she was not the type of person he had in mind for the job. I fail to understand your neutrality argument - SAS does actually say these words on the show, making it a fact.

RE: Jennifer Maguire and editing I believe the only reason this was edited out was because the producers did not think Jennifer had enough sympathy with the audience to warrant a 'soft' dismissal. (But we know now that this was said). I personally think this is wrong, but on the whole, I think the editors do a decent job of trying to sum up to 20 hours of footage per task into a cohesive story. Some people are not shown in a flattering light, but you can't please everyone. 92.236.140.63 (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well there's your answer - you've just shown that the editing isn't always true to what happened - in which case, to adhere to a neutral POV we shouldn't include the term at all. Sea serpent 85 22:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's impossible to adhere to a neutral POV about what really happened -- we weren't there. All we can do is report what is portrayed on screen (plus any reliable information from other sources, of course). If we can't report that people said what they are seen to have said, and did what they are seen to have done, then we have no article at all. In my view it is notable and relevant if SAS says he regrets having to fire a particular candidate. The only potential problem that I see with a statement like "Who gets fired: Simon (with regret)" is that it could be construed as meaning "it looked to me as if he regretted it". What we should probably do is find a way to make it clear these were SAS's actual words, and then I don't see how there can be any objection. As the proposer says above, "SAS does actually say these words on the show, making it a fact." Matt 02:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.245.143 (talk)


 * Seaserpent, I totally agree that all articles should remain emotion-free and neutral, but there is no way that "with regret" suggests impartiality. We can only relay information from the show or else, as the poster above has said, there is nothing to tell. The poster above has also mentioned how the statements can be misconstrued by others who take the term regret to mean retrospective remorse, but that is how SAS, rightly or wrongly, has termed it. There could maybe be a sub section in the main Apprentice UK article explaining the term and that is reserved for people whom SAS was not happy to sack but was left with no other choice. That would be a fair compromise.92.236.140.63 (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still very much against the inclusion of this. There are candidates who have been told "I'm letting you go", would that still count? Heck, why not include every little detail - in fact, an angry firing is probably just as "relevant" as a regretful one - where do you stop? As far as I'm concerned, the issue with Jennifer's firing proves that it's not a black or white situation. What's wrong with just the candidate's name and a brief reason for the firing? It's a synopsis, not a running commentary. Sea serpent 85 15:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No-one has suggested including "every little detail" - "With regret" has become a key term for debatable boardroom firings. If it wasn't, we would not be having this discussion. In answer to your question, "where do you stop?" - you stop after telling if someone was fired and whether it was with regret or not - These are the only two points to raise regarding firings. I'm not aware of SAS firing someone in anger or telling someone that he is "letting them go" so I don't know why you have brought that into this. I can only suppose that you have no feasible reason not to include "with regret" and are now just attributing suggestions to me that I have not made. These attempts to undermine me show you have no more valid points to make. 92.236.140.63 (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

O/R - When have I attributed any of this to you? I'm stating my case about the inclusion of the term in the article, and at no point have I been personal or "undermining" to anyone. This is about improving the article quality, there's no need to get defensive when we're all working towards the same goal. To discount my point about candidates being "let go" purely because you haven't heard of it does not mean it's not a valid point - quite the opposite, the decision reached here should be done so by consensus and a with a pool of our collective knowledge and perspectives on the article subject. Sea serpent 85 16:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As stated earlier, there are no reasons why this should not be included and no-one (even you, in your three or four comments cannot come up with anything). Yes, by not hearing "let go" does not necessarily mean it didn't happen, and in most cases I would give the benefit of the doubt but when did it happen? It's all right to comment on me discounting your points, but am I actually wrong in saying that "let go" is a phrase that has never been used?  Instead of retaliating on the points that I had made, you have taken my argument and exaggerated it to the point of ridicule.
 * "Heck, why not include every little detail - in fact, an angry firing is probably just as "relevant" as a regretful one - where do you stop?"
 * Like I said, no-one has suggested this, but it was a spurious comment in order to undermine the other side. If not to undermine, then why say it? It is a childish tactic and it still means that you (or any of the "consensus") still haven't given a valid reason why it should not be included. To make it easier, here are my reasons for inclusion of "with regret":


 * It is a key term.
 * Shows the fired candidate did not do a lot wrong.
 * Shows SAS was not happy with firing the concerned candidate but SAS had no other choice.


 * If you can counter these reasons with a valid argument of your own, I will listen and hopefully we can come to a decision. 92.236.140.63 (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you insisted on someone countering you, here goes. I fully support SeaSerpent by the way, and thoroughly Oppose the inclusion of "with regret"


 * It is a key term - No, it isn't. It is an offhand statement reflecting SAS's emotions at the time as shown in the editing. When he says "get out, you're fired!" in an angry tone of voice this is the exact equivalent except that the emotion is not summarised in two words. See the firings of Alexis, Paul (in series 2 and 3) and Ian in this series for examples of this. There is exactly zero significance to it, it is not considered a "special" type of firing, it adds nothing, it means nothing. Think about that from the perspective of someone who doesn't watch the show, or has even never heard of it - would they see any signifance in it? No. Never.
 * Shows the fired candidate did not do a lot wrong - No, it doesn't. The editing of each show is massive of course, huge amounts are filmed and next to nothing shown, so we don't know the truth of it. We see what the producers want us to see, which is massively skewed. There could have been a lot more that occured and was discussed but was eventually cut for time or any of a dozen other reasons.
 * Shows SAS was not happy with firing the concerned candidate but SAS had no other choice - No, it doesn't, or certainly we don't know that. Trying to derive things like that to me counts as O/R unless it is explicitly stated and can be sourced that that was his exact attitude. If those exact words (or near enough) haven't been stated then we can't assume his attitude from a highly edited firing sequence - and remember, plenty more will have been edited aside from just those words, what was edited may make us think he felt differently to the way he actually did.Caissa&#39;s DeathAngel (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, this debate seems to be moving in the right direction and we seem to have established the core issues. I have to say that I disagree on a few of your points.


 * "With regret" is a key term - like I said earlier, there wouldn't be a debate if it wasn't noticeable and people would not add it to the article if it was just 'an offhand statement'. It's not like he's only used the phrase once or twice. There a have been quite a few occasions and on each occasion he says the exact phrase, "With regret... you're fired." Even the You're Fired show picks up on this.
 * We have to put a stop to this editing nonsense. We must report on the programme as it is shown on TV, edits and all. Nearly all non-live programmes are edited in some way but editing does not magically make SAS say "with regret". He has said it and we have heard him saying it. So please let's draw a line under the editing issue, whether we agree or not. Okay, we will not know about any "feelings" SAS might have had, but SAS saying "with regret" is a fact. You may be right about SAS and his choices - we do not know that and I accept that - but we do know he said "with regret" and as it has become an issue that 'You're Fired' and users who have included it in the articles have picked up on, surely that makes it important enough to include in the article.
 * If I was to think about this programme from the point of view of 'someone who has never seen the show or even heard of it' what significance would most of the article have? Does it matter who was brought into the boardroom? Does it matter what the reward was each week? What IS of significance in ANY article to anyone who has not heard of it? That is one massive can of worms that no-one should open.

To end the argument, I propose this: We put in a sub-section in the Apprentice UK article explaining the term "with regret" (for people who have never seen it) and for each firing with regret, we state it in brackets, as it has been done already. 92.236.140.63 (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, a few other members and I have worked hard to get the main article up to featured status and maintain it there - the reason I bring this up is that I know that you'll never find a source to back up whatever meaning you are reading into "with regret", it's neither a formal part of the show or relevant enough to be found in any reliable sources. Seeing as the only way not to get defensive, unconstructive remarks from you is to bullet point my argument, here is how I see it:
 * It's superfluous - a candidate fired "with regret" is still fired, and does not affect the outcome of the show in any way.
 * It's inconsistent - Jennifer's firing proved this, in the main show she received a "normal" firing, yet on You're Fired, the words "with regret" were mentioned. If it were included, who's to say that similar firings weren't aired on You're Fired back in the previous series? Unless it is consistent, it's pointless to the reader.
 * It's ambiguous - is it implying SAS himself felt regret? Regretting firing the worst of a good bunch? Regretting firing someone he likes personally? Regretting firing someone because he feels they let themselves down? It's not obvious to the reader, and I'd personally say that it's a matter of opinion as to how you understand that statement.


 * I would propose we simply do away with the term, for the above reasons. Sea serpent 85 23:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support proposal by SeaSerpent85 for the reasons he and I have both stated. He phrased it better than I did, but I was trying to suggest that we don't know if "with regret" has been said in other instances because of the editing. Who knows what else might have been omitted? What was not shown may well skew what SAS was thinking at the time. There is no consistency available, and the term needs to be removed forthwith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caissa's DeathAngel (talk • contribs) 13:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support proposal by SeaSerpent85 - Wow, I leave the discussion for a weekend and all hell breaks loose! I honestly didn't expect this much reaction when I first responded to this post and presented my view of being completely opposed to including the term, "with regret" in this particular article. All the salient points of the term's dismissal have been covered so far, but there still seems to be some confusion. Please, feel free to respond to me here, as personal attacks on useful editors such as Sea serpent 85 do not help progress the debating issue at hand. Without prejudice, I make the following statements and in response to User 92.236.140.63:


 * 1) We must report on the programme: Er no, this is an encyclopaedia, not a diary account or tabloid magazine. Therefore the editing nonsense to which you make reference is a serious and necessary response to edits made by users without due care and attention. There are a few core editors of the Apprentice articles (myself included) that are working hard to maintain and raise the status of these articles to a recognised good standard. The edit removals, etc are not in any way personal attacks on people's good judgement, merely an attempt to maintain consistency.
 * 2) It's not like he's only used the phrase once or twice: True. But so what? this in itself is not a valid argument, and the other supporting statements that you used to justify with are not adequate enough to include the term in the article. With reference to it being a key term, it may be in your view, but this is your own opinion, not based on any other fact. unless you can provide a reference/citation with evidence to suggest otherwise?
 * 3) what is (or isn't) significant in the article: well, to be honest, if you want to debate that, the discussion should not be held here, it should be held on the main Apprentice talk page. All the other three previous series have been formatted EXACTLY like this particular article, and if you have not seen the series before, you look to the main article for clarification. The series articles are actually stubs of the main article, and therefore no provision needs to be made for entirely new readers as that is what the main Apprentice article is there for.
 * 4) To end the argument, I propose...we put in a sub-section: Again, no. This will not happen until a consensus of opinion  is reached upon the term existing within any of the Apprentice-related articles. It serves no real purpose, and will only add to the confusion already being demonstrated here. In summary, all edits to insert the phrase "with regret" shall be frowned upon and reverted, not because it is fact, but because it is non-notable. Until this can be proved otherwise, I urge all other editors to continue to edit sensibly and consistently. Hopefully there will be some understanding of this issue. Many thanks,  δ ² ( Talk ) 14:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support proposal by Seaserpent85 - inclusion of this term is completely unnecessary. This page is meant, as part of an encyclopaedia, simply to document notable facts impartially.  This means providing useful, factually accurate information that would not mislead a new reader unfamiliar with the subject.  Whilst the fact that SAS does occasionally say "with regret" is factual, it is not especially important, but is liable to mislead an unfamiliar reader of the topic who may infer a significance from it that is not verifiable.  Fritzpoll (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidently we have consensus - "with regret" is considered non-notable and may therefore be removed on sight as trivia that may impair the encyclopedic value of the article/related articles to readers unfamiliar with the subject. This view has been supported by SeaSerpent85, Fritzpoll, Deltasquared and Caissa's DeathAngel, with only IP Address 92.236.140.63 opposing. I personally consider this matter closed for now. Caissa&#39;s DeathAngel (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I also oppose, per my earlier comment. None of the above argments persuade me. Matt 02:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.46.136 (talk)


 * Just further to this whole issue, another reason for its dismissal and therefore consensus is as per WP:EPISODE.  δ ² ( Talk ) 00:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of information
The edit here removed quite a lot of information that the editor thought was "unnecessary", apparently without any discussion. I support the idea that the episode descriptions should not become too overblown, but there are some parts that I think should be reinstated. What we should be aiming to do is give a brief synopsis of the key features of each episode. This includes the reaction in the boardroom. To give one example, the fallout over the fact that no-one knew the meaning of "kosher" (now removed) was, in my view, very much a key feature of that episode. Is everyone else happy about all these deletions? Matt 86.133.48.195 (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC).
 * I agree that the changes Seaserpant has made are by and large helpful to the article. From a quick cursory glance, Week 7 and Week 8 changes may need tweaking. I can see where your point of view is coming from, although you should always assume good faith of other wiki users, especially Seaserpant. There are a dedicated band of users that are trying to improve all the Apprentice articles in line with the aims of the wiki project and to gain "Good Article" status. I think that some information can be re-instated but the majority seems to be well judged edits. Many thanks,  δ ² ( Talk ) 03:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies if my edit seemed a bit over the top - the intention was actually to give some consistency to the article and remove the large amounts of POV that were present in the synopses. There was also a lot of irrelevant information plonked in "Notes" sections for almost every episode - though I agree I've probably been a bit overzealous with weeks 7 and 8 in particular. I have no problem with the readdition of any parts you guys feel were unfairly removed by myself :) Seaserpent 85 10:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Task Winning Tally
I propose to, in an extra end column to the results table, to tally how many tasks each candidate has won. What does everyone think? Could someone experienced in WIKIlanguage do that then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredster2004 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Fredster, um, I don't think that this is a good idea, as it doesn't add anything to the article per se. The current format of the table is the same for ALL the previous series and I imagine has had much debate in arriving at this format. I for one do not see how this addition will help as I think the current format already makes it clear how the candidates have performed. If you can provide rationale for the addition, maybe it would be worth considering then? Many thanks,  δ ² ( Talk ) 19:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it does add detail to the article and people will be interested to see how far candidates have gone winning x number of tasks.
 * You can already do this though by simply referring to the table itself and using the legend provided? Many thanks,  δ ² ( Talk ) 22:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been brought up before in previous series - the main reason for not including it is that it would imply winning tasks is somehow important in the overall process. Take, for example, Paul Tulip from series two - he won 7 tasks yet SAS fired him at the first chance he got. These articles are supposed to give the reader an overview of the series, not every irrelevant detail. Seaserpent 85 12:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is a very interesting thing to see how people do compared to how many tasks they win. Lucinda was fired even though she won 8/10 tasks. Surely it is in our interest to know these things?
 * Dear unsigned comment-person. Please sign your comments in future. In addition, why not follow the previous advice given and use your common sense? Explanations have been given as to why this information is either not useful or can already be obtained from the existing information. Many thanks,  δ ² ( Talk ) 19:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is  extremely  difficult to find out how many tasks a candidate has won as it is not even made clear which team has won. Why does everyone gang up on me? It is an extremely useful statistic which many people would be interested to know.

Outdented reply - I don't think anyone is ganging up on you, we've merely stated why this isn't in the article. You may want to look over What Wikipedia Is Not which gives reasons for not including baffling amounts of unecessary statistics. Seaserpent 85 19:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fredster2004. The table is very confusing when it comes to figuring out who has won the task. Someone who had never seen the show before wouldn't be able to work out who has won from this table. Why not just add a simple column with this information in?

Week 7 Double Firing
In the episode, SAS clearly says that Jennifer Maguire was picking up on what he was saying and changing her tune to match. She was changing her answers "yes I knew he was Jewish", "no I didn't know" etc. This is the reason he fires her. At no time does he say it's because of her attempted sabotage. I'm sure it was factored into the decision but in the episode we don't see that at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.123.113.87 (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The reasons for firing also are summarised from the follow on program, "You're Fired", in which SAS does state the sabotage as a reason for dismissal. Many thanks,  δ ² ( Talk ) 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, accepted but is this article about "The Apprentice Season 4" or "The Apprentice Season 4 and all associated media stories" ? I mean, what if SAS is quoted by The Sun saying another reason...? Shouldn't you go by what was in the actual series ? I know the whole thing is edited, re-edited, condensed and summarised, etc. From my POV it seems that it was the media that decided it was due to the "sabotage" (which I think is a poor choice of words, for bribery); I haven't seen the You're Fired show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.123.113.87 (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are of course entitled to your own POV, but the article must portray NPOV. The spin off program "You're Fired" is simply being used here as a reference to the facts. A lot of the information contained with articles will be referenced from places you haven't necessarily seen; this doesn't mean it should be discounted just because you yourself haven't seen the context of the reference. If you see what I mean. In summary, the article is written to be balanced and impartial, using multiple sources of reference, and in this instance, the reasons for the firing have been correctly ascertained. Many thanks,  δ ² ( Talk ) 22:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And from an NPOV - which is what Wikipedia is based on - it was to do with the sabotage, as Sir Alan Sugar himself - the person who actually made the decision - said as much in the official sister programme of the show. That is what counts, that was the reason, the fact that you haven't seen You're Fired for that week means nothing except that you've missed that fact out. It remains as it is in the article.Caissa&#39;s DeathAngel (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't explain myself very well. I just wanted to clarify the scope of the article - the correct reason for firing may be due to the sabotage but to a person who has not seen the You're Fired show this would be the wrong conclusion. So basically the scope is the main show plus what, any show the BBC make related to TA ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.54.130.68 (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point somewhat, though the short answer is a cautious yes. This is only because the article is using other sources of information to support it. Otherwise the answer is an emphatic no. The article is not to be a diary account of current events, as per WP:NOT, and so this particular article (like any other article on a television series) is not sought to simply be an episode summary. I do understand where you are coming from, however I hope that you can now understand why the article is written in this way? Many thanks,  δ ² ( Talk ) 03:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just watched You're Fired on YouTube http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sk-rJJFYTCU, at 4:30 SAS says "She tried to place blame on others... and wasn't consistent... that's why I fired her". Nothing about sabotage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.54.130.227 (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, would you prefer the term "bribery", as used in the episode? Interestingly enough, if you type "apprentice sabotage" into YouTube, the first item is a direct link to a clip from the BBC themselves, who refer to the event as "sabotage", here. Many thanks,  δ ² ( Talk ) 02:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I propose that unless you can find some clip that shows SAS saying she was fired for sabotage/bribery then the article should be changed. If you do find such a clip, then the word(s) that SAS used should be used in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.123.113.87 (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ratings
I have included the ratings for Series 4 from the BARB website. I will cite the source on the article but I don't know how to. Just thought I'd let you all know. 86.134.230.47 (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

US date format?
Given that this is an article about a UK television show is there any reason why a US date format has been adopted within the Candidates table? I imagine that this page is primarily of interest to British people and that a British date format would therefore be more logical and probably clearer for the intended readers of this page. MrDannyDoodah (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)