Talk:The Apprentice (British TV series) series 2

The Apprentice (British TV series) series 2 was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 19, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 September 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

Television: The Apprentice UK / Episode coverage / Reality Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Apprentice UK task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Reality television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Article Name

I don't think this is quite the right title for the page. The show isn't called "The Apprentice 2". I think "The Apprentice (UK series two)", "The Apprentice (second UK series)", or somesuch would be better. I will move it in the next day or two unless anyone pipes up with major objections. Suggestions on what the prefered form is, gratefully received. Jamse 23:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the show is presented differently from]] the US version. You won't get any complaints from me. --Destron Commander 03:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jamse

Contents list

I really think the word 'fired' shouldn't be placed next to names in the contents list (and hence the section titles) as it appears before the spoiler template and makes avoiding spoliers pretty much impossible. I would also move the table listing the firings much further down the article, perhaps after the candidate bios, but I don't know how to do this. 84.65.218.55 21:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Week 9 - Dramatic tension

I've removed "and arranging to meet somebody at the Tower Bridge but instead going to the train tracks and ending up losing the buyer" - bad grammar and badly formatted. Also I don't think this is true? Was it Tower Bridge? Garethpeate

As I recall it was a bridge over the River Thames (so clearly not a small railway bridge), but not the Tower Bridge. Can't remember which it was. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was Wandsworth Bridge. They were covering Battersea - remember. Jooler 03:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually quite a stupid mistake for a Londoner to make. If in London you say Wandsworth Bridge - or Lambeth Bridge or Waterloo Bridge or whatever - the default assumption is that you're talking about a bridge over the Thames. BTLizard 09:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth

It appears as though the section on "Ruth Badger" has been vandalised. Could i ask for it to be fixed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.106.112.16 (talk • contribs) .

Done Please sign using ACEOREVIVED (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC) on talk pages! haz (us e r talk) 20:44, 10 May 2006[reply]

Candidate profiles

Something needs to be done about these - variable lengths and some lacking in detail (there being more on personal websites). Some also have reasons why they were fired and when, while others still read like the start of the series. Perhaps someone can update them? User:Michaelrccurtis

Candidate bios

I've just massivley overhauled the article, adding all the candidate biographical information into a table, along with the websites which were listed under external links. I took the opportunity to remove a huge amount of the personal opinion in the biographies, since this is an encyclopedia and we should stick to verifiable facts. For that reason, I also removed the "dramatic tension" for each of the weekly tasks. Such comments were entirely a personal opinion, and made the article read like a review of the series, which as an encyclopedia article it should not be. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

Shouldn't the photo of Sir Alan with the winner appear after the spoiler warning? --88.111.136.61 13:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

What would be the point of moving the character lists into a separate article? It's not as though this one is too long, and it wouldn't make sense without the character list - that's the most encyclopedic thing about the article! _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 14:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]