Talk:Winners & Losers

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Melbourne / Television Low‑importance

	Australia portal Winners & Losers is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (by someone else, I'm just tidying up). Andrewa (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winners and Losers (TV series) → Winners and Losers — No reason for disambiguation of Winners and Losers (TV series), no other article with same name exists. Currently Winners and Losers does exist, but only redirects to Winners and Losers (TV series), it should be the other way around. Logical Fuzz (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Speedy move This is completely uncontroversial; why did it even need a RM? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:--Logical Fuzz (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copyvio[edit]

There seems to have been a claim of copyvio [1], but it wasn't substantiated with any evidence and seems to be fixed. Andrewa (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International distribution table[edit]

I just fixed it, but since it also includes Australia, it's not really an International Distribution table is it? Anyone suggest a better name? Jdenm8 (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

[2] - Good Sophie Ref.
[3] - Reception - From Fairfax Media's entertainment website "The Vine"RaintheOne ^BAM 01:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[4] - W&L is part of FME’s global drama strategy.Rain the 1 21:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Potential spin off info
No plans for spin off - JuneGloom Talk 00:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cast section[edit]

The cast section is starting to bug me now. I think it should be arranged into Present/Current and Former. The problem is various characters have sneaked over. I have been examining the credits and they roll with everyone who has a character profile on the official website first. Which is odd, so Jasmine is recurring? She gets more screen-time than Doug. Is Dot still a regular? It all becomes guess work. But we know for sure who is current and who is former. So how about keeping it simple? Also the two baby characters could be removed as they are not really important and listing all actors wold just clutter the article.Rain the 1 01:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Jasmine was promoted to regular for season three. Present/Current and Former might work better or we could just get rid of the labels altogether to avoid confusion. Just list the cast in two/three columns in the order of whatever season they joined the show? - JuneGloom Talk 01:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I really like the idea of one entire list in a series of columns. That will avoid problems of OR for good.Rain the 1 02:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Mattom123 made changes of their own regarding the cast section. Yet not a comment in sight from them here. Nice to see we, at the very least, have wiki etiquette and discuss changes.Rain the 1 10:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. I'm sorry if I haven't commented. But if you feel that there are any problems, please, feel free to voice them. I'm just trying to do what you and JuneGloom are doing and making Wikipedia a much better resource.Mattom123 (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]