Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Apprentice (UK)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:59, 8 October 2007.

The Apprentice (UK)

Nomination restarted (old nom) Raul654 17:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — I still seems capitalisation issues that haven't been resolved and some partial dates that do not require linkage. Matthew 15:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out some example of both issues? Seaserpent⁸⁵ _Talk 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- "(Series One and Two)" and "Auditions and interviews were held during the first two weeks of July 2007 in London". Matthew 16:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Partial dates de-linked. No need to change capitalisation - they are consistant and are the titles of each series. Seaserpent⁸⁵ _Talk 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've yet to provide an official source that the BBC has titled them "Series One", so on. If you can provide such a source I'll reconsider. Matthew 18:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, whether the BBC write "series one" or "Series One" is fairly irrelevant. I doubt that they have a specific policy on it anyway. Basically it's a style issue, where Wikipedia can differ from other publishers -- as it does in other areas. For example, the BBC don't usually italicise the names of shows (whereas Wikipedia does), the BBC often capitalise Important Words in headings (Wikipedia doesn't), and so on. "Series One" is the title of a work, and "series one" is a description, and which to use depends on your point of view. In the absence of a specific direction for this case in Wikipedia's MoS, we are at liberty to choose the style that we prefer. (Personally I tend slightly towards lower case, but am not that much bothered either way.) Matt 20:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC).

Comment: I look forward to supporting soon, but there are still one-paragraph sections: specifically, in 'related programmes' and 'future series'. The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Removed the future series section. Don't see the problem with the related programmes section, especially when compared to the lenghts of sub-sections on some FAs. Dalejenkins | 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those sections are also short. I would have also commented had I been involved in its FAC. The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sections of related programmes do you want to be merged exactly? Dalejenkins | 16:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comic Relief Does The Apprentice', 'The Apprentice: You're Fired!' and 'Rumoured programmes' are all one paragraph sentence that don't need the headings. You could do without the mainarticle templates too. The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ I approve of the way the headings have been reduced in size, and I haven't noticed anything else major that would make me oppose. Well done to Matt for his excellent work on the article.Legalbeaver 15:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How rude, at least 2 others have helped on this article, and a futher 2 helped get it to GA. Dalejenkins | 16:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my apologies, I didnt mean to offend anyone. Seaserpent85 seems to have contributed a lot too, well done to him/her and to all the others contributers who made minor edits - every little counts.Legalbeaver 16:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to dignify your arrogance with a response. I stopped School Playground tactics at age 5. Any, I best not waste any more energy, back to the FAC. Dalejenkins | 17:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, the goal is to improve articles. If you look for appreciation on Wikipedia you will regularly be disappointed and disheartened. The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not out there for appreciation, I just thought it was childish to the point of hilarity. Lets move on. Dalejenkins | 17:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. You seem to be throwing a tantrum, though I'm not sure what I have done to merit these responses from you Dalejenkins. Suddenly it's arrogant to congratulate contributers !?! Let's assume good faith here. Rest assured that my praise was meant for you also. I hope that makes you feel a little better, Dale. Had I of known that you wanted me to name you personally in my praise then I would have done so. Back to the FAC. Looking at the article again, i'm in agreement about the headings issue that JPS has brought up. It seems the overuse of headings has not been cleared up - something I failed to notice when I skimmed over the article earlier. It's not enough to make me Oppose, but I cannot support until this issue has been altered. Content in "Related programmes" should be combined as it was in the "Series" section. Legalbeaver 18:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as I did last time, however there are some wikilinks that need to be cleaned-up in the reference section. And why is this article called "The Apprentice (UK)" and not "The Apprentice (UK TV series)?" While I prefer this way, another FA is called "The Office (US TV series)" and not "The Office (US)." –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 04:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tony (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.