 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
The claim that the area has seen 'a decrease in locals' is strangely ambiguous to the point of being meaningless. Does the sentence have racial overtones? If so it should be removed, or radically altered to remove its overt political content. If not, it should be changed to make the meaning more clear. If no-one protests I shall remove it.
No objection from me. If it means a decrease in population, then it should say so and provide citations. Otherwise, it can go.Rat 16:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
--change made.
- It would be useful if population figures were included. Loganberry (Talk) 15:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Article title edit
Regarding the last edit "Nobody calls it Great Wigston" - nobody calls it Wigston Magna either! The article uses "Wigston" virtually throughout; that is the name of the council (Oadby & Wigston) and that is the name everyone calls it.
I propose that the article is renamed Wigston; that all references other than one to Wigston Magna are correct to Wigston and that it is explained that whilst Wigston Magna is the formal name of the place, it is commonly known as Wigston. MarkyMarkD (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)