Jump to content

Talk:Young Apprentice

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Results table

[edit]

Definitely needs changing. Gold for the winning team, grey for the losing team. The candidates swap teams throughout the process, so it's not important what the team was called, but rather if they won or lost. 139.184.30.132 (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why, simply because you don't like it? KingOfTheMedia (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Err... no? Because it doesn't correspond with the other tables of The Apprentice, and because it's misleading, like the poster below says.139.184.30.134 (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree i think it is misleading. Also Adam has withdrawn from the competition due to illness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.109.163 (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to how a colour can be misleading? KingOfTheMedia (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's very misleading. A quick glance would indicate Tim was on the winning team each time and only a closer look and a look at the legend shows it's meant to be about the team names. sicaruma | contribs 22:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody is willing to suggest an alternative colour scheme here, I will be more than happy to advocate a change. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I already implied, I advocate the colour scheme used in other tables of The Apprentice series. Here's a nice clickable link for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apprentice_(UK_series_one)".The colours are misleading, because they don't clearly show the winning and losing teams for that week. Is it gold, or grey? Oh wait... it's both! The names of the teams don't matter; it's whether they won or lost what's important.139.184.30.134 (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, tables with codes such as "BR" and "PM" and very long keys are not user friendly and we must remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a fan page. The same point supports the "it doesn't matter what team they're on line" - this is an encyclopedia. I have changed the colour now and both teams are different shades of green. Unless anyone can suggest any suitable alternatives...? KingOfTheMedia (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are they not user friendly? And if they're not user friendly why are all the other The Apprentice pages using them?139.184.30.134 (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The green looks awful.139.184.30.134 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument breaks WP:OSE. And until you can provide a suitable alternative, the table will remain as it is. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split the article?

[edit]

Since Lord Sugar has confirmed [1] that there's going to be a second series, should we perhaps think about splitting this article up into separate entries? For instance, keep this page for a general overview of the show, and create Junior Apprentice (series 1) and Junior Apprentice (series 2) articles for each individual series. --DaveJB (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose on the episode summaries?

[edit]

Hi

I notice that the episode summaries are written in continuous prose. I don't think that this is appropriate for this kind of article. All of the other Apprentice-related articles have summaries that are much more clearly structured with a list of episode features - such as project managers for that episode, the task, the result etc. I think that structuring that way is more appropriate, because as an encyclopedia Wikipedia should be user friendly, and doing it that way would make it much easier for a reader to quickly find out what they want to know, rather than having to waste time reading a full paragraph if they only wanted to find out one specific thing. As I said, this is what the other Apprentice articles do, and I think that it works better than how it is here.

I thought about changing it myself, but I decided to post a message here first in case anyone has any objections. If no one responds to this, I will go ahead and change it.

Thanks! George.millman (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the title of this series

[edit]

Hasn't the programme gone back to being called "The Junior Apprentice" in the most recent series at the time of typing (i.e. December 2011)? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. The second series, currently being aired (final on right now) is called Young Apprentice. 92.25.40.66 (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Young Apprentice. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 06:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Young_Apprentice&oldid=1210471701"