Talk:Wallace & Gromit

Untitled movie

Recently it was announced that a new w&g movie is in the works. I would like there to be an article on that, or at least a mention in the article

) Oversized Lego spoon 64 (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone feel like the Shaun the Sheep franchise should just have its own page instead? It has so much of its own content by now, I think it should be called a spinoff franchise. - 19 Aug 2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:16D0:5410:8406:8B58:5AAE:2F7 (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Glico commercials

In the Advertisement section it’s said that first Wallace and Gromit commercial was for Renault Kangaroo but actually as I know the first W&G commercials were for Glico’s pucchin pudding product. 88.84.208.58 (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Move to "Wallace & Gromit"

I believe this article should be moved from "Wallace and Gromit" to Wallace & Gromit due to it matching not only the branding of the franchise, but also to match other articles on the Wallace & Gromit films, with the only current exceptions being A Grand Day Out and The Wrong Trousers. It is also correctly in-line with how Wikipedia articles can be titled, with other examples including Thomas & Friends or Mario & Luigi. SleepDeprivedGinger (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

That seems like an appropriate request per MOS:AMP. You can start a WP:RM discussion to move it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Done! SleepDeprivedGinger (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Using and ampersand is and always has been the W&G logos from the 1980s. It conforms to the Wiki regs on this issue. Put in the '&'. Ensure a redirect from Wallace and Gromit.

ASC Camsteerie (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I would, but there was already a discussion about it several years ago and I think it had to do with "common names" or something. I guess, we could try it, but it would probably be reverted on sight. SleepDeprivedGinger (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@SleepDeprivedGinger

As Erik put it referring to the Wikipedia 'manual of style' on ampersand use it is compliant:

Ampersand

[edit source]

Shortcuts

MOS:AMP

MOS:&

In normal text and headings, use and instead of the ampersand (&): January 1 and 2, not January 1 & 2. But retain an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, the title of a work, or a trademark, such as in Up & Down or AT&T. Elsewhere, ampersands may be used with consistency and discretion where space is extremely limited (e.g., tables and infoboxes). Quotations may be cautiously modified, especially for consistency where different editions are quoted, as modern editions of old texts routinely replace ampersands with and (just as they replace other disused glyphs, ligatures, and abbreviations). Another frequent permissible but not required use is in short bibliographic references to works by multiple authors.

I cannot see what 'common names' would be.

I think it should be an ampersand as that is how Nick Park & Aardman have always styled it, so Wikipedia should comply in accordance with their MoS.

For some people there is just an extreme aversion to them ever being used - buggered if I know why - and will try to get rid of them in a nee-jerk reaction.

ASC Camsteerie (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, me describing the original reason as "common names" was just a case of poor memory. Every point you bring up here (and on your talk page; I was notified when you mentioned my username) makes total sense; the ideal name with the ampersand qualifies with MOS:AMP while the current one doesn't. It's best if we keep supporting the ampersand name unless someone brings up a point we can't argue with. SleepDeprivedGinger (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@SleepDeprivedGinger

Sorry if I am dragging you into something you don't want to be involved with.

Sadly, too many editors believe that if there is anything that they disagree with means that a whole edit is just undone or deleted without considering the value of the rest of the material in the edit. This action is wrong.

The Undo function is to enable a reversion if an article becomes inoperative or has been hacked and vandalised. An edit is not vandalism. The undo action to delete an edit is vandalism, because it is destroying another editor's input.

For over 20 years on Wikipedia I have worked with Wikipedia's attitude of:

Do something — don't undo — always re-edit

We have been discussing the ampersand issue and agreed on the talk page and no-one has dissented.

I made the changes in accordance with the agreement and in accordance with MOS:AMP and then another editor knee-jerk reacts by undoing this without going to the talk page which is contrary to Wikipedia editing.

Anyway, if you no longer want to be included in this, then please let me know.

ASC Camsteerie (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It's alright, I want this article's name to change just as much as you do. Maybe the reason it keep getting reverted is because this topic has already been discussed on an archived WP:RM discussion several years ago.

Maybe contributing to / arguing against it might be a more straightforward way to go about this. SleepDeprivedGinger (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The article text should match the article title, per MOS. If this article is "Wallace and Gromit", then that's how the writing in the article itself should be. If it should be "&", then the page should be moved and then the article adjusted to match. Please follow WP:RM to get it done: start a formal discussion via that process to demonstrate a current consensus about it. Consensus can change (the previous RM result is not eternally binding) but given there was such a discussion, a new one should be used to supercede it. DMacks (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

A contested technical request has been made at WP:RM/TR. SleepDeprivedGinger (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I know. And it will possibly lead nowhere--a wasted opportunity--since there is no formalized discussion here (i.e., nobody cared enough to follow up with that listing, per instructions there). DMacks (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Waqar💬 07:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Wallace and Gromit → Wallace & Gromit – Although there is a previous discussion on this, the current title does not comply with Wikipedia's Manual of Style (please see MOS:AMP) whereas the requested one does. SleepDeprivedGinger (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Tevildo (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• This is a procedural conversion from a technical request to a controversial request. My opinion is Neutral. Tevildo (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • See Talk:Wallace and Gromit/Archive 2#Requested move 12 November 2017 for previous discussion. Tevildo (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Once again, support move, as the series name is typically spelled with the ampersand. O.N.R. ^(talk) 15:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Britannica uses the ampersand with The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Crouch, Swale is this support? YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Probably but I'm not sure given the source refers to The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  The logo and most of the text in the official website uses the ampersand and as noted by Roman Spinner is consistent with similar titles so call this support. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support: I'm happy this doesn't violate WP:&, which specifically mentions text and headings, but not titles. The '&' also appears to be part of the trademark, and WP:& says that it should be retained in these cases. Uses of 'and' seem to be mainly for techie reasons, for instance the fandom wiki, or incosistencies. I think it was pointed out before that the BBC prefer 'and', but their recent article specifically uses '&' when clearly referencing the franchise, which is the subject of our article. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nomination; O.N.R.; Crouch, Swale and YorkshireExpat. The book The Art of AARDMAN the Makers of Wallace & Gromit, Chicken Run, and More uses the ampersand, which also appears in a number of English Wikipedia main title headers, such as the above-mentioned Thomas & Friends or Mario & Luigi as well as others, such as Penn & Teller, Siegfried & Roy, Cheech & Chong, Bud & Travis, Key & Peele, King & Prince, Tim & Eric, Jay & Joss, Jay & the Techniques or Jay & Silent Bob, as depicted in titles, such as Jay & Silent Bob Get Old or Jay & Silent Bob's Super Groovy Cartoon Movie!. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:29, 8 August 2024 (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.