Talk:The Apprentice (British TV series) series 3

Sir Alan

There's no need to wikilink Sir Alan Sugar subsequent to the first time. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate Biographies

All information in here comes from the same website, MSN entertainment. Perhaps the official candidate info from the official site could re-written? I also think including rumours in the bios is unecessary, particularly with sources as notoriously dubious as NOTW. Seaserpent85 11:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, and since it is a word-for-word copy, it is a blatant copyright violation from [1] and I have thus removed it. Whilst this article may prove a useful source for writing candidate biographies, it can not be copied. Also note that biographies need to be written in an encyclopedic manner, and from a neutral point of view. It should all be attributed to a reliable source._└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 17:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need the extra information in the biographies - "Business Development manager for HEWLETT PACKARD", "Salesman for ABBEY CHARTERS", "Car Sales Manager for RENAULT" and "Advertising Sales Manager for ADVERTISING.COM" - aren't all four of those ADVERTISING in themselves and extra information that really isn't needed? I don't think they can be sourced either. I'm inclined to delete them. Any thoughts?? Madmick13 14:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the info comes from the official site candidate interviews. However, I agree there is no need for having them in this article - all biographical info on candidates in a separate article, List of The Apprentice UK candidates.Seaserpent85 15:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming Episodes

I'm not a fan of including upcoming episodes (other than a preview of the week ahead) in the challenges list - not only does it leave blanks inbetween but it includes major spoilers. Whilst I appreciate that there is a spoiler tag in place, it seems unfair to include information which would spoil the series for everyone and not just those who had missed the last show. Seaserpent85 00:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should delete any references to future episodes and rumours. They don't add anything of any value to the article as the correct information will be included when the tasks have taken place. Jamesb1 16:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, details including Project Manager, Reward for Winning Team etc should only be posted after the programme has aired. pjb007 17:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate Bios

Damn! I spent ages typing and creating new candidate bios and accidentally pressed back and kinda deleted half of it (i copied the other bit) ---- have it on there tomorrow... —Preceding unsigned comment added by olz06 (talk • contribs)

That sounds brilliant! This means we can get rid of most of the columns in the candidate table. If anyone still thinks we need more info on who was PM in which week etc then we could implement a 'weekly results' table showing who was on which team each week. Seaserpent85 11:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Weekly Results Table!

No offence to anyone, but I think this looks a tad shabby. The codes (eg. PM, S and so on) need a key. The table should also highlight who was called back to the boardroom. We'll also have problems in the final episodes, where there are no team names. Maybe we should take influence from here? Dalejenkins 08:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did state it was only basic. The general gist of it came from the US Apprentice pages - though it is nice to be able to see who was in the boardroom etc. so I've added that as well as the much needed key. The interview stage and final week can just be in another colour, compared to the Big Brother table you linked to, it should be a lot clearer and more straight-forward.Seaserpent85 22:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, stop changing the colours without discussion on here first - it's obvious we don't agree on the situation so there needs to be some external input from other people to resolve it amicably. I'm all for changing the team colours to make them stand out more, but changing the fired colour to such a bright red is distracting and confusing. Seaserpent85 14:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The Weekly Results Table-"Fired" colours

Seaserpent85 and I have come to a disagreement over this issue. I believe that the "fired" colour should look like this-

Candidate	Episode Number												Result
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Ifti		B											Fired in Week 2
Andy	PM												Fired in Week 1

While Seaserpent85 wants this-

Candidate	Episode Number												Result
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Ifti		B											Fired in Week 2
Andy	PM												Fired in Week 1

Shall we have a vote to decide who has the best idea? Just put *I SUPPORT <user's name> and explain your reasons. Whoever has the most votes wins. We can't vote for ourselves! Dalejenkins 20:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• I vote for SeaSerpent's colour scheme - grey is the standard colour used to indicate that a table entry is not in use/invalid which would be the case here. The use of red is very off-putting, and implies some extra status that has not been listed.. I can understand the choice of red, to highlight those who have been fired but this is already highlighted by the text in the rightmost column - fritzpoll 00:37, 22 April 2007 (BST)
• The red hurts my eyes. And, as per fritzpoll, it looks as if it has some unexplained meaning. The grey is just fine for me, but I understand there may be issues for colour-blind readers which I am ignorant of and couldn't comment on. Does there need to be any colour at all? Could the cells just be left empty? Matt 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
• I vote for SeaSerpent's scheme. The grey is less obtrusive. I think we need to have colours to help make the chart easier to read. Jamesb1 08:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, for the time being it seems that the grey is more popular. I definitely agree that it needs to be more user friendly though - any suggestions as to how without making it too confusing? See the tables on the series 1 and 2 pages for how the table looks when completed. If we were to go down the route of adding more colours, we'd need at least 4 more - Stealth PM, Eclipse PM, Stealth in BR and Eclipse in BR - hence my doubts. Any ideas? Seaserpent85 15:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The existing table seems clear and well designed to me. What do you dislike about it? Matt 02:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I would agree - looking at the tables for the previous two series as suggested, it seems we would only require the useual two additional colours for the final two weeks when interviews take place, followed by the one-on-one competition in the final. Any further colours for PM, B, etc. would be both redundant and cluttering, reducing readability. --Fritzpoll 23:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Advance notifications

I would like to strongly suggest avoiding including details about who ends up in the boardroom/is fired in a particular week before that episode airs. I am aware that the spoiler tags should be a warning, but people cannot reasonably expect that the information for an unaired episode will be available, and including any details of who is in the boardroom effectively spoils the episode. I have therefore removed the information (having been annoyed to have my viewing for this evening ruined :) ) and if people disagree, I think it would be better if we discussed this here first before a revert is made. --Fritzpoll 15:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree - see talk further up the page. Though if you don't want to know, then I would suggest avoiding this page on Wednesdays before the show - due to the nature of Wikipedia, someone will almost always take it upon themselves to add this in before the episode airs. There isn't much we can do to be honest, except of course revert any such edits. The big problem, is that the tabloids have been spilling the beans early and giving people a source for this info - several major contributors to this article seem to be fans of including it. That said, I support this idea and will also do my best to revert any major spoilers. Seaserpent85 15:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I take your point about not viewing it prior to the show - no objection to the week by week allocation of project managers, since these are often announced at the end of the show. I think there needs to be an unwritten rule that the results of current programmes can only be sourced from the program itself --Fritzpoll 16:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, just look at the words in the spoler tags. If you don't want the possibility of you viwing ruined, don't read info about a future episode. Dalejenkins

Reverted. It depends on your definition of a "Spoiler". My contention is that people seeing a "spoiler" tag will presume that only the episodes that have been aired haver information displayed. By displaying *future* information, I believe you are stretching the definition of spoiler to an unreasonable degree. Since I have the agreement of other members on this, can you continue the discussion here before restoring the edits, as I requested in my original message. --Fritzpoll 16:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that reasonable person would assume that spoilers would contain future information. That is not the common usage of the term spoiler. If Dale keeps insisting on ruining episodes, then I guess we will just have to contact someone because it is BS. Dale obviously does not care about anyone else's wishes... 68.13.109.131 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, you can accidentally look at a future episode while looking at the episode or two before it. So your suggestion about not looking at future episodes is rubbish. 68.13.109.131 21:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Week 6 Error.

There is an error in week 6. The details say that Eclipse made a loss of £225, partly due to excessive spending on marketing, whilst Stealth made a profit of £410. And the winners are shown as being Eclipse. Are the team names in the details wrong or is the team name shown for the winner wrong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pjb007 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC).pjb007 18:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Good spot, I've just corrected it. Seaserpent85 19:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Template suggestion

I've just noticed the box at the top-right of Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK) (listing the candidates). I'm sure something similar could be created for use in this article, with good effect, if anybody has time... _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, that's a lot neater than the current table. I'll see what I can come up with!Seaserpent85 18:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Think it looks fantastic - good job! _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

New spoiler tag

In week seven, the new "future" episodes warning is great - I just wanted to say what a good idea I think it is, and well done to whoever set it up. It completely satisfies the problems stated in "Advance notification" above, in my opinion.  :) --Fritzpoll 12:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, nice solution _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 13:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

<takes bow> I made that template. Thanks guys. Dalejenkins 11:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice one, Dale :) Fritzpoll 15:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Idea for weekly review table

Looking at the weekly review table, I think it would be better to change the colours, so they don't represent Stealth or Eclipse, but so they represent the week's winning team, and losing team. It's not really important if one person was in "Stealth" one week, for example, and if you want to see how many times a particular contestant has been on the winning/losing team, it's a lot easier. PLUS, it isn't really important knowing that "Oh Eclipse lost in week 4, but won in week 5", because the teams swap contestants all the time.

Hmm, that's a very good point with which I'm inclined to agree - knowing who was in the winning team would be more useful than knowing who was in Stealth on any given week, in my opinion _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 17:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. Winning and losing isn't particularly important unless the candidate gets fired, in which case they were evidently on the losing side. Your suggestion gives the impression that having a certain amount of wins/losses would affect thr candidates' outcome, which isn't the case - take Ruth in series 2, she lost 7 out of 10 tasks and made it to the final. As it is, the table shows who worked with each other over the course of the series as well as showing team reshuffles etc. I think we need to remember that this table isn't a complete overview of the series, it's just there to complement the challenges section. Seaserpent85 17:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As per Seaserpent, Ruth also "won" in the final, but Michelle was hired. Dalejenkins

Inclusion of information on the final

There are 2 reasons why I've reverted this; firstly it is simply a cut and paste job of the source website, which would need to be rewritten to be acceptable here. Secondly, digital spy source their material from various tabloids such, as is the case here, The Sunday Mirror - if you can find the original story then you may have a valid reference, but the general concensus has been that tabloid rumours don't merit inclusion here. Seaserpent85 12:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've sourced it properly. Dalejenkins 12:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the second part about one member turning him down, since is based on an anonymous source. The details about four apprentices being kept on are from quotes directly attributed to Sugar, so I think they can remain. However, comment are always welcome. --Fritzpoll 12:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, so my putting the spoiler in about the final is probably not very fair before it has aired, but it's so glaringly obvious from viewing the program as to whom Alan Sugar points whilst saying "you're hired" that I've put it up, not as rumour, but as a first-hand report.

The full details are, at the end of The Apprentice episode 11, Sir Alan points to his right and says "you're hired". At the end of The Apprentice You're Fired episode 11, they show a shot of the boardroom with Kristina to Sir Alan's left, and Simon to his right.--Soyeb1234 01:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the above reasoning is good enough to put results up without confirmation. There is the possibility that the shot at the end of You're fired was from before the task started, and they sat elsewhere after the task was completed. I'll remove my changes.--Soyeb1234 01:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is definitely not a reliable source - in the past, the editors have even been known to show the firing shot in mirror image so as not to give anything away. At any rate, SAS's decision is not final until Tuesday at any rate - the 'You're Hired' show is recorded on Tuesday. Seaserpent85 12:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent Additions To Weekly Results

I've reverted the recent changes adding the final week teams to the weekly results. There are a couple of reasons - firstly, the addition of yet more colours and letters to the key makes the table completely unreadable. Secondly, the table serves as a guide as to how far each candidate got in the competition, not as a complete breakdown of the series. The final week teams are outlined in the challenges section, and I feel that's all that is needed. Seaserpent85 18:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. People such as Rory said they were coming back. This gives these context and the current place is unclear. LizzieHarrison 19:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Seaserpent85 on this one, I'm afraid. Tables are intended to clarify, not to confuse. Extra colours do make things more confusing, and this table is simply intended to highlight who was still in the competition - the inclusion of others is therefore unnecessary. --Fritzpoll 12:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My attempt to fix a simple error - the fact that Simon was colour-coded as "runner-up" - seems to have become confused with this discussion and reverted. However, I see that this has now been remedied by changing the colour legend to "Grand Finale" which is fine by me. Matt 12:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

Oops! Sorry, Matt - there have been a number of unregistered users messing about with the table lately so I didn't realise you were caught up in all that! The table has always had 'grand finale' for the finalists - someone must have changed this and I didn't notice in the first revert. On a side note, we need to sort out getting this whole WikiProject up to scratch now that the series has ended! :) Seaserpent85 13:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries - the factual inaccuracy was my only concern. I should have made it clear in the edit summary that that was why I was changing it. Matt 00:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Stealth's Week 9 total

The article states that Stealth had their total reduced to £1,170 as a result of being late. This figure is never mentioned in the episode though; this gives me the impression that £1,300 was in fact the figure left over after their deduction, meaning that their original takings would have been actually £1,440. Anyone agree with this? --217.43.78.242 23:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

Good work on the article, however there are a few issues which must be resolved prior to promoting this article:

1. Firstly, the lead needs quite a bit of work. As it stands now, it is far too short and not representative of the rest of the article. I would suggest that its length be doubled and that information about candidates other than Simon be mentioned (in particular Kristina and Katie, who were very high profile candidates). Some information about the one-off specials should be included, along with some mention of the controversies. Also, the lead does not need footnotes as long as the information is also located in the main body of the article. I would recommend removing some of the footnotes from the lead.
2. I think that what's been written is quite good, but I think that as it is an article focused on Series three, that some mention should be made of some of the differences between this series and the prior two. One that comes to the top of my head is that they performed one task in France, the first time a task has been done outside of the UK on land (there was that cruise task from series 2, but it was wasn't on land).
3. I also think that some mention should be made of the relationship between Katie and Paul, another first for the series. The controversy about Katie's past relationships also merits a mention.
4. Some mention should also be made about what the high profile candidates are doing now. For example, while it is mentioned that Simon won, I don't see anything that says what kind of job he was offered in the Amstrad companies. Also of note is that Kristina was offered a job with Alan after the show aired, and that Katie was fired from her job as a result of the negative publicity she received.

I would suggest thinking about what I have suggested and changing the article accordingly. Because the article is good in nearly every other way (concerning the GA criteria), I will put it on hold in hope that some changes be made to bring the article up to par. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask me. Zeus1234 04:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

1.  Done, I have added in this infomation, although have kept the footnotes in the lead as I feel it makes the text more reliable, as I personally disagree with the old "if its in the lead and article, don't cite the lead" thing. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 19:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Comment - Firstly, that isn't exactly correct, as Ruth and Syed left the boat to go into some town in Spain in order to buy prizes for a competition they were running on the cruise. They bought champagne and eventually gave it away for free(!) Anyway, I've done mentioned that the show moved from BBC Two to BBC One, and that there are now 16 candidates, not 14. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 18:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    Done, added in some infomation about which tasks have been done in previous series. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 17:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Comment - We did have a section on the "Kaul" relationship, but a discussion on this page decided it was too "tabloidish", as both denied that there was a relationship, so most of it was speculation. Katie's personal life is thoroughly documented in her own article, anyway.Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 09:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
   It is true that this is tabloidish, but the controversy occurred whether it was true or not. I don't think that details of it are nescessary, but at least a mention that there was a controversy is important, as it is not even mentioned in the controversy section. Something should be written about the 'alleged' relationship between Paul and Katie. It definetly had an effect on the series, and was an important aspect to it, both within the series (the other contestants complained), and outside (media coverage).Zeus1234 01:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Done, added this into the contestants section. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 17:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
4.  Done, an "Aftermath" section has been added. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 19:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Lietenants

Shouldn't Paul's name read Lt Paul? Because British army officers keep their ranks when they retire (for example, Paul's name wouldn't be done as Mr Paul its done as Lt Paul) The C of E (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Apprentice (UK series three)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force, all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA. I have determined that this article needs some upkeep to maintain its status, and I have some additional comments:

• What's the point of {{Apprentice Candidates}}? It doesn't look that good, isn't very useful (and is redundant with the cast listing elsewhere), and would be better replaced with an infobox, such as {{Infobox Television}}.
• While we're at it, File:Apprentice2007.jpg really doesn't add much to the article. The contestants aren't commented upon in any manner that would require a picture of them, and the image is so small anyhow it's not like you can make anything out. As is, fails WP:NFCC, so it should be cut.
• Prose issues: There's a mess of problems throughout. One common one I'm seeing is improper tense, ex. "The mental health charity MIND has criticised the programme for enrolling Jadine Johnson", et al. These all need to be fixed. I'm also not sure about how current a lot of the facts are, so some sections (such as Aftermath) need to be refreshed and clarified.
  • There's a boatload of one or two sentence "paragraphs" that aren't really paragraphs (you need at least 3 sentences). These should be merged, cut, or expanded.
• Coverage:
  • Do we need a blow-by-blow of the challenges? We aren't a recap service, and even lists of episodes don't go into this much detail.
  • Where's the content about the show's reception, distribution and ratings? That's a big gap in coverage.

Giving the above issues, I don't think the article meets current GA criterion, namely 1 and 3. I am placing it on hold for one week pending improvements. Please appraise me of any updates or progress here in this space. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Since no improvements have been made in the time allotted, I am delisting the article. Articles can be renominated at WP:GAN any time, however I stress that the above issues be taken care of first. If you have any questions, my talk page is the place to go; I don't watchlist old reviews. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Apprentice (UK series three). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070820154632/http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk:80/apprentice/news_260407_natalie.shtml to http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/apprentice/news_260407_natalie.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Apprentice (UK series three). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927223100/http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/primetime/the_apprentice/news/1113 to http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/primetime/the_apprentice/news/1113
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714084615/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/showbiz/article-23394836-details/Apprentice+show+flirting+'robbed+me+of+my+chance'/article.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23394836-details/Apprentice+show+flirting+'robbed+me+of+my+chance'/article.do
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070910194227/http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk:80/celeb_news/Apprentice_star_Katie_Hopkins_flirting_angers_Sir_Alan_article_116647.html to http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/celeb_news/Apprentice_star_Katie_Hopkins_flirting_angers_Sir_Alan_article_116647.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Apprentice (UK series three). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23394836-details/Apprentice%2Bshow%2Bflirting%2B%27robbed%2Bme%2Bof%2Bmy%2Bchance%27/article.do
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/celeb_news/Apprentice_star_Katie_Hopkins_flirting_angers_Sir_Alan_article_116647.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070625120334/http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/features/display.var.1456687.0.0.php to http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/features/display.var.1456687.0.0.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Apprentice (UK series three). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715001820/http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=928672007 to http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=928672007
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926234425/http://www.24dash.com/showbiz_slapdash/20275.htm to http://www.24dash.com/showbiz_slapdash/20275.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Episode descriptions

Where have the episode descriptions come from? They read like advertising lines, i.e. one team struggle with a choice forced onto them by their leader, and soon find themselves ending up in the boardroom kennels. is far more aimed at persuading someone to watch rather than telling them anything that happened (which team? what choice? what kennels?). The recent change has made the article vastly less useful for the readers, IMO. OZOO (t) (c) 20:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

If you prefer the old one, feel free to put it back, only for it to be reverted. A discussion on a AfD for this article and several linked to it determined there was too much information given, most of which were Original Research, which Wikipedia frowns on. The information had to be removed and the Episode section remade as it is to combat this problem. GUtt01 (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)