Talk:Wallace & Gromit

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wallace & Gromit article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Film: British

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.

Television: British Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Animation: European / Stop motion High‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the European animation work group (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Stop motion work group (assessed as High-importance).

Comedy High‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Media franchises Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 7 August 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Wallace and Gromit to Wallace & Gromit. The result of the discussion was moved.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- See Talk:Wallace and Gromit/Archive 2#Requested move 12 November 2017 for previous discussion. Tevildo (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Britannica uses the ampersand with The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale is this support? YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.