This article was nominated for deletion on 27 September 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
Candidate | Task | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |
James | L | B | L | W | W | W | B | W | L | W | W | W |
Sarah | W | W | W | W | L | W | W | L | B | B | W | W |
Michaela | W | W | B | W | L | L | W | L | W | W | F | |
Elizabeth | W | W | W | B | W | W | B | W | B | W | F | |
Joanna | W | W | W | B | W | W | B | W | W | W | F | |
Jade | W | W | W | L | W | L | W | L | W | F | ||
Harrison | L | L | B | W | B | W | L | W | W | F | ||
Bushra | W | W | W | L | W | W | L | W | F | |||
Charles | B | L | L | W | L | B | W | F | ||||
Anisa | W | W | W | L | W | L | W | F | ||||
Andrew | L | L | L | W | L | B | W | F | ||||
Sajan | L | L | L | W | B | W | F | |||||
Sarah-Jayne | W | W | W | L | W | F | ||||||
Ross | L | B | L | W | F | |||||||
Siobhan | W | W | W | F | ||||||||
Elliot | B | L | F | |||||||||
Jeff | L | F | ||||||||||
Danny | F |
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. Sr88, talk. 22:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
GUtt01 ( talk) 23:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Candidate | Task | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |
James | L | B | L | W | W | W | B | W | L | W | W | W |
Sarah | W | W | W | W | L | W | W | L | B | B | W | W |
Michaela | W | W | B | W | L | L | W | L | W | W | F | |
Elizabeth | W | W | W | B | W | W | B | W | B | W | F | |
Joanna | W | W | W | B | W | W | B | W | W | W | F | |
Jade | W | W | W | L | W | L | W | L | W | F | ||
Harrison | L | L | B | W | B | W | L | W | W | F | ||
Bushra | W | W | W | L | W | W | L | W | F | |||
Charles | B | L | L | W | L | B | W | F | ||||
Anisa | W | W | W | L | W | L | W | F | ||||
Andrew | L | L | L | W | L | B | W | F | ||||
Sajan | L | L | L | W | B | W | F | |||||
Sarah-Jayne | W | W | W | L | W | F | ||||||
Ross | L | B | L | W | F | |||||||
Siobhan | W | W | W | F | ||||||||
Elliot | B | L | F | |||||||||
Jeff | L | F | ||||||||||
Danny | F |
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. Sr88, talk. 23:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
Where have the episode descriptions come from? They are unsourced and resemble advertisements more than encyclopedic writing. For the team whose purchase costed more than they should, each candidate is quick to argue their way out of being in the boardroom and avoid becoming the first person to be fired
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 "POWS" and "BAMS" trying to avoid being the next to be in the firing line.
?) 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)
it shouldn't tell readers who got fired.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)
all of an episode's important events should be outlined without censoring details considered spoilers- WP:TVPLOT OZOO (t) (c) 15:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
some non-scripted reality series, for example, may require similar summaries as scripted seriesOZOO (t) (c) 20:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
some non-scripted reality series, for example, may require similar summaries as scripted series, it says "May". "May" - it doesn't say they "do" require. GUtt01 ( talk) 20:12, 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)
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)
And not just for this series, but for all of them.
-- 31.205.43.216 ( talk) 23:52, 7 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)
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)
This
edit request to
The Apprentice (UK series 14) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 September 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
Candidate | Task | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |
James | L | B | L | W | W | W | B | W | L | W | W | W |
Sarah | W | W | W | W | L | W | W | L | B | B | W | W |
Michaela | W | W | B | W | L | L | W | L | W | W | F | |
Elizabeth | W | W | W | B | W | W | B | W | B | W | F | |
Joanna | W | W | W | B | W | W | B | W | W | W | F | |
Jade | W | W | W | L | W | L | W | L | W | F | ||
Harrison | L | L | B | W | B | W | L | W | W | F | ||
Bushra | W | W | W | L | W | W | L | W | F | |||
Charles | B | L | L | W | L | B | W | F | ||||
Anisa | W | W | W | L | W | L | W | F | ||||
Andrew | L | L | L | W | L | B | W | F | ||||
Sajan | L | L | L | W | B | W | F | |||||
Sarah-Jayne | W | W | W | L | W | F | ||||||
Ross | L | B | L | W | F | |||||||
Siobhan | W | W | W | F | ||||||||
Elliot | B | L | F | |||||||||
Jeff | L | F | ||||||||||
Danny | F |
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. Sr88, talk. 22:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
GUtt01 ( talk) 23:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Candidate | Task | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |
James | L | B | L | W | W | W | B | W | L | W | W | W |
Sarah | W | W | W | W | L | W | W | L | B | B | W | W |
Michaela | W | W | B | W | L | L | W | L | W | W | F | |
Elizabeth | W | W | W | B | W | W | B | W | B | W | F | |
Joanna | W | W | W | B | W | W | B | W | W | W | F | |
Jade | W | W | W | L | W | L | W | L | W | F | ||
Harrison | L | L | B | W | B | W | L | W | W | F | ||
Bushra | W | W | W | L | W | W | L | W | F | |||
Charles | B | L | L | W | L | B | W | F | ||||
Anisa | W | W | W | L | W | L | W | F | ||||
Andrew | L | L | L | W | L | B | W | F | ||||
Sajan | L | L | L | W | B | W | F | |||||
Sarah-Jayne | W | W | W | L | W | F | ||||||
Ross | L | B | L | W | F | |||||||
Siobhan | W | W | W | F | ||||||||
Elliot | B | L | F | |||||||||
Jeff | L | F | ||||||||||
Danny | F |
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. Sr88, talk. 23:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
Where have the episode descriptions come from? They are unsourced and resemble advertisements more than encyclopedic writing. For the team whose purchase costed more than they should, each candidate is quick to argue their way out of being in the boardroom and avoid becoming the first person to be fired
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 "POWS" and "BAMS" trying to avoid being the next to be in the firing line.
?) 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)
it shouldn't tell readers who got fired.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)
all of an episode's important events should be outlined without censoring details considered spoilers- WP:TVPLOT OZOO (t) (c) 15:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
some non-scripted reality series, for example, may require similar summaries as scripted seriesOZOO (t) (c) 20:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
some non-scripted reality series, for example, may require similar summaries as scripted series, it says "May". "May" - it doesn't say they "do" require. GUtt01 ( talk) 20:12, 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)
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)
And not just for this series, but for all of them.
-- 31.205.43.216 ( talk) 23:52, 7 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)
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)
This
edit request to
The Apprentice (UK series 14) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.