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.
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.
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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]
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.
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]
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.
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]
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:
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.
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.
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]
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]
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 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]
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.
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
