Talk:Wigan/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Demographics

Your article could use a section on demography, including the ethnic makeup. A population figure is in the info box but could be included in the demographics section as well. Is Wigan growing? That sort of thing. I had need of ethnicity info for a report. --Pat (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There haven't been many recent censuses and to be honest there is a tiny amount of ethnic minorities in the borough anyway, less than 2%.TheFamousPeter (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There's still plenty of stuff that could be used in a demography section, ethnicity etc and historic population change. I'll sort out a small section when I can find some time. Nev1 (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Photorequest

I was at the infirmary Wigan today (without a camera) and there are some really nice buildings around the town - the infirmary being one of them. Couldn't someone local treat us to some piccies in the article? Richerman (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of images on Geograph UK that can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and used on Wikipedia articles. As an example there are 50 images of central Wigan. There is even a geograph template which makes the tagging and licensing easy. --TimTay (talk) 08:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, I've taken up your suggestion and put some in the article. Richerman (talk) 15:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiganworld has some free to use images too. According to this disclaimer, photographs that have no author creditted, or are marked as submitted by "Brian" are free to use for any purpose (i.e., they are in the Public Domain).

Shame something like this is not by Brian! -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm also trying to work out if this image is avaliable for display. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, hard to tell, but the two pictures you've mentioned do look good. I think the image of the parish church in the article should be replaced with one showing the whole church, but I'll leave it up to the Wiganers to decide what goes in now. Richerman (talk) 22:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There are very few active Wiganers at the moment. One who appears to have left us was User:Man2 -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I am a Wiganer. I'll be taking a few snaps of the iconic buildings; talk to me if you want any specific ones done, such as the infirmary. TheFamousPeter (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Distances

As with other towns, distances should be measured as-the-crow-flies rather than by road. For this reason, Wigan is not 21 miles from Liverpool, but 17. Draw a 21 mile radius circle around Liverpool and you will go way past Wigan. It just so happens that Manchester is the same distance. Stating the distances are similar, but giving compass bearings, is not the same as stating Wigan is halfway between the two. This would only be true if the compass points were exactly opposed e.g. south west and north east. I think the current sentence about distances from Liverpool and Manchester is adequate and not at all complicated. --TimTay (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tim (?), you will find that the article on Wigan is 'run' by editors who consider themselves to be 'Wiganers'. No matter what the true facts, you will NEVER shift these people to admit that their 'town' is closer to Liverpool than it is to Manchester. It proved very hard to persuade them to believe that their parish churches come under the Diocese of Liverpool. (fnaaar fnaaaar) Whatever true facts you put on here, will be removed in order to promote a brightly coloured image of what is, in reality, just a small ex mill town. As it stands, the article contains rubbish and cannot be used as a reliable source of information. Colin.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.161.89 (talk) 17:36 31 March 2008

It will be difficult to pursuade 'Wiganers' to accept that Wigan is closer to Liverpool than Manchester as simple geography shows that it is not. What this has to do with the article anyway I have no idea. Wigan is indeed under the Diocese of Liverpool, again what is the point? Man2 (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:DENY please.

Anyway, according to GENUKI (<-search yourself) Liverpool is 17.4 miles (28.1 Km) WSW of Wigan and Manchester is 16.5 miles (26.7 Km) ESE of Wigan, as the crow flies. This is verifiable, and so what should be used. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiganers identify a lot more with manchester than liverpool, hence their allignment with it. Is Jamaica closer to Wisconsin or Africa? And where do you think the rastas identify with most? Distance is no measure of attachment between places, it's just a number. Sorry, pointless comment, but I had to say it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.198.113 (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Keeping Wikipedia Factual

I would suggest, as this article is about the town of Wigan, that information posted is restricted to the town of Wigan, rather than other towns which could be many miles away from Wigan. For instance, the 'famous people' section contains names of persons from within the Metropolitan Borough, of which Wigan is the main 'town', but are actually nothing to do with Wigan. I notice people mentioned from as far away as Burnley!?! Information about other towns in the same 'Metropolitan Borough' as Wigan is part of, should be entered in the article on that particular town, as well as in the article on the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan'. Colin.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.161.89 (talk) 17:36 31 March 2008

It will be difficult to pursuade 'Wiganers' to accept that Wigan is closer to Liverpool than Manchester as simple geography —Preceding unsigned comment added by Man2 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 31 March 2008

• • I would suggest that you stop posting because you should be banned. Using the name 'Colin' instead of JemmyH or Tonker doesn't fool anyone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.187.124 (talk) 07:09, 2008 April 3 (UTC)

OK, people, please note that I have posted on 'discussion' and not on the article. This is the ourpose of 'discussion' so I am breaking no rules. I am expressing my honest opinion of this article. The fact of the matter is this .... Wigan, as a 'town' bearing that name, is only small. The 'Metropolitan Borough', which also bears that name, is much, much larger. However, not all towns (and there are many) in that Metropolitan Borough are called Wigan, only one is. My opinion is that the 'town of' Wigan should be separated from all the other towns in the Metropolitan Borough of the same name. Residents in Leigh, for instance, dislike being referred to as Wigan people and rightly so. They are in Leigh, not Wigan. If there was only one article, covering the whole of the Metropolitan Borough, then so be it but, there is articles on both the 'town of' Wigan and the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' so they should be used accordingly. Famous people from Leigh shouldn't be noted as being 'from Wigan', just the same as people from Wigan shouldn't be regarded as being 'from Leigh' (or Hindley, or Atherton, or Ashton in Makerfield etc. etc. etc.) The article on Wigan is seriously wrong and, please, don't think I don't know what I'm saying, as I live just out of Wigan (the town of) myself. Colin (not jemmy but closely related) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.161.89 (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD says if you think something needs changing then change it. If you believe that the list of notable residents contains people who are not from Wigan then remove them (as I did with Georgie Fame). Even better, where possible the list of people who actually come from Wigan should contain an external citation proving it. Apart from that list I think the rest of the articl *is* just about Wigan. --TimTay (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Tim,

• Wigan's population is not 81,000. That's the population of the 'Previous County Borough', consisting of Wigan AND Pemberton. (the reason for the joining together of the two councils was that Wigan, itself, had too small a population to be a 'County Borough' on it's own).
• Wigan is not the largest town in the Metropolitan Borough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.161.89 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• The comments about coal mining are ridiculous, as there is very little accessable coal under Wigan (town) due to strata faulting. (being an ex mining engineer, I have studied the area's geology in depth). 1000 shafts within 5 miles of Wigan (town) could be true however, all the shafts were not 'mine shafts' but 'ventilation shafts' or 'exploratory works'. Also, five miles from Wigan isn't Wigan, is it? Ashton in Makerfield had many coal mines and was in the 'St.Helens Area' of South Lancashire Coalfield. Many coal mines, within five miles of Wigan are now in St.Helens Metropolitan Borough, so they were neither in Wigan or the, modern-day, 'borough of'.
• Heinz is in Pemberton, not Wigan.
• JJB Sports is in Pemberton, not Wigan.
• Winstanley College is not in Wigan.
• Limahl was from Pemberton.
• None of The Verve were from Wigan.
• Starsailor are a Chorley band.
• In 1926, it was the 'Tyldesley' miners who were forced back to work, eating humble pie. (other towns were mining towns, Wigan was, primarily, a mill town and an 'admin' centre for coal trade).
• Many 'famous people' are not from Wigan but, of course, it does state that they don't have to be to be included. Rather silly I think, as so many famous people have 'connections' to many towns there would be too many to list. ie: Whelan is from Bradford, may have business in Wigan but doesn't live there.
• Many links refer to the Trencherfield Mill Steam Engine being the 'biggest, original, mill steam engine in the world', which is not true.

The list is endless.

Tim, you say you removed Georgie Fame, although he was from Leigh, some of the listed persons are further from Wigan than Leigh is!

Colin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.161.89 (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A long and obviously well researched list, so fix the article! --TimTay (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The above point (about Pemberton) has been sorted for at least a year. Pemberton is an area of the town of Wigan, not a separate district of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan. This has been show to be correct time and time again. Thanks Man2 (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Man2 ... I notice that you still can't come to terms with the difference between a 'council area' and a named place. Like I've told you before, Wigan and Pemberton, although administered by the same council, are different places, with different names. Officially! Pemberton is not, and never has been, a part of the 'town' called Wigan. Pemberton is separated from Wigan by the River Douglas and one of it's tributaries and is only as much a 'part of Wigan' as all the other towns which form the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan. Due to the Local Government Act 1894, Pemberton 'Urban District Council' was desolved in 1908 (Wigan Archive Service keep records of Pemberton UDC up to this date). Just the two 'councils' merged, Pemberton itself did not become part of the 'town' of Wigan, it joined a borough 'along with' Wigan. The two town councils became one body, forming the County Borough of Wigan. Due to the Local Government Act 1972, many other towns councils, some miles from Wigan, all joined together to form the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, not the 'Massive Town of Wigan'. You need to do some studying, Man2. I presume you live in Pemberton and like to consider yourself as being 'from' Wigan. I'm afraid you know very little about the history of your own area. Colin.

Tim, as you will undoubtedly be aware, there are people here who would immediately erase whatever I, or anyone else for that matter, put onto this article, even though my contributions are always supported by official sources (maybe not by Wikipedia, I mean 'official' sources). Colin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.161.89 (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Colin,

I notice you quoted the following words to Man2 :-

'I notice that you still can't come to terms with the difference between a 'council area' and a named place. Like I've told you before'

Where did you tell him before???

You're new here aren't you Colin??????????????????

Geez, what an idiot!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.187.124 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 6 April 2008

Until some SERIOUS research is done and TRUE FACTS posted on articles such as this one, Wikipedia will remain an UNRELIABLE and UNTRUE source of information. This is wrong, due to sites like this being used by teachers to source information for their pupils. How idiotic it is, to fill children's heads with the wrong information!

PS ... to whoever posted the last reply, (Man2), I can inform you that I held a management position with the National Coal Board for 12 years, so your impression of me won't be shared by many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.161.89 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 6 April 2008

Jemmy H AKA Tonker AKA Colin = SOCKPUPPET

I still see that you are mistaking me of being Man2. Thanks for sharing your past details although I'm not interested. I'm surprised you didn't mention how many properties you own in the area, you usually bore the pants off us with that one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.187.124 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 6 April 2008

Just to make it clear, I did not post the above comment. Thanks. Man2 (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I know who it was. Please yourselves, if you wish to continue to display wrong information, do so. What I can't understand is, why not PROVE your comments rather than write off someone elses? I suspect it's because you can't? Rather than childish 'namecalling', source the facts! Colin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.161.89 (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.187.124 (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• TO anyone interested ..... 'Wigan' population -

http://www.wigan.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D5DA1AA7-B094-45EE-941D-9C11895A643B/0/agetownship23Kb.pdf

Above is the 2001 Census taken by Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council. The town of Wigan is included in Wigan North and a small part in Wigan South. Contained in Wigan North and Wigan South are the following towns and villages :- Standish - Aspull - Wigan - Ince - Pemberton - a small section of Orrell east of the M6 motorway.

As you will see, the total population figure for ALL these places , according to the official council census, is ...... 73,184 (some 7000 less than the article's claimed figure for Wigan alone). And 'Wigan' (the town of) is only a fraction of that total area. (council estimate for Wigan itself is 18,000 to 20,000)

The 'Urban Area' population, published by National Statistics, takes a different and much larger area into account. The 'Wigan Metropolitan Borough' population total takes a combination of 'some' of the Wigan Urban Area plus 'some' of the Greater Manchester Urban Area plus a couple of Stand Alone Urban Areas.

Bring back standardization. It's no wonder Wigan people don't know where Wigan is!

Colin80.193.161.89 (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pemberton is an area of Wigan 'town', not a district of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan.This has been established for some time. Refer to the article for sources. Thanks. Man2 (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Pemberton is not part of Wigan itself. It is an Ecclesiastical Parish within the diocese of liverpool (without of Wigan). It has township status.

Pemberton 'council' was annexed to Wigan 'council' to create Wigan County Borough. Wigan couldn't become a 'county borough' on it's own because it had too low a population. Councils may join together, adminisration may change, administrative areas may change, local government boundaries may move frequently, BUT, land boundaries are subject to land law and councils cannot change them. Pemberton is only part of Wigan 'borough', it is NOT a section of the town of Wigan. I defy anyone to find official evidence which proves that Pemberton has ever been made part of Wigan, other than for council / administrative purposes. Every source offered explains how Pemberton UDC was disbanded and annexed to Wigan UDC to create Wigan County Borough. Two towns, Pemberton and Wigan, one governing body, a Borough, with a Borough Council. A 'borough' is not a town, it is an administrative area which can consist of two, or more, towns. That original 'borough' is now referred to, officially, as 'the former Wigan county borough' and it consists of two places, Wigan AND Pemberton. Even Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council have confirmed this fact. The council freely display the River Douglas as part of the boundary between Wigan and Pemberton. They know that the joining of the two towns was purely for local government purposes. Man2, you insist on commenting 'this has been established for some time', when it's only 'established' to you, on Wikipedia! The fact as explained by myself is a Historically and Officially Established, to those who matter. It is an actual fact and should be displayed on Wikipedia.

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/image.aspx?compid=41379&filename=fig15.gif&pubid=288

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=41381&strquery=pemberton

http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/LAN/Pemberton/

Colin80.193.161.89 (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Some good sources there Jemmy. They're at least a 100 years old. I've got to go now, I want a cup of tea but have to milk the cow first.

77.96.187.124 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the Victoria Histories, but they are of their time. Anon 80.193.161.89: do you have any knowledge of the content and effect of The Wigan (Union of Townships) Order, 1920? Mr Stephen (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes, I have seen that on the 'vision of Britain' site. However, I have never seen a copy of the order or a description of the order ie: who the 'order' was authorised by, purpose of the order etc. I would guess at it being a local government issue for an administrative purpose. Colin80.193.161.89 (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC) (copied from my talk page) Mr Stephen (talk)

The maps you link to are of townships. Phrases like like "Union of Townships" would make me want to make sure, not guess. Mr Stephen (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hoping you enjoyed your cuppa, but the age of the information is irrelevant. Those links describe Pemberton as it was and still is. The fact that the administrative boundaries have changed over time is meaningless to the name of a place. 'Wigan' has clearly marked boundaries, so has the borough which carries the same name. Wigan's boundaries have never changed. The borough (authority area) which carries it's name is continually changing. It will change again this year.

Wigan and Pemberton have defined boundaries, the settlements contained within them have not. Colin80.193.161.89 (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The old 'County Borough of Wigan' was the 'town' of Wigan. Pemberton was moved into the County Borough of Wigan, thus becoming 'part' of 'Wigan'. It ceased to be a standalone place. This explains the roadsign saying 'Wigan' on Pemberton Road as you enter the 'town' of Wigan from the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan'. Thanks. Man2 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an old and closed debate. It's been established that Jemmy H/Collin trolls www.wiganworld.com with this same issue and probably wants to cite Wikipedia as a source for him to "win" his arguement there. Until there is conclusive, post-1974 evidence stating "Pemberton is seperate from Wigan" explicitly, then I see no reason to continue this discussion. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank god !, I'm so tired of going over old ground again and again. JemmyH/Colin has made some valuable contributions in the past but he must accept that he is wrong regarding both this point and the point regarding Wigan's population. Like Jza84 said this is a closed debate.Man2 (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I also see no reason to carry on the discussion, however, I would point out that PRE 1974 evidence of Pemberton being 'separate' form Wigan, far outweighs any POST 1974 evidence, simply because NO POST 1974 evidence has been forwarded. The only shown evidence of Pemberton being 'part of' Wigan has been ADMINISTRATIVE (council / local government) which has never been denied. Colin80.193.161.89 (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Jza84 .... Just to add, I would NEVER, as you say, 'cite Wikipedia as a source' of information. Simply because it cannot be relied upon to be correct. In fact, I would advise people NOT to use Wikipedia as an accurate reference point.

Colin80.193.161.89 (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  21:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not connected to the above, just a question for anyone who may know. Why did the Metropolitan Boroughs of Bolton, Stockport and Doncaster apply for city status in recent years, but the Wigan Borough, with a larger population than all three, did not?. Just out of personal interest. Thanks Man2 (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

City status isn't necessarily granted to those places with the largest population. The other three boroughs probably felt they could present a better case. Also, those boroughs don't contain as many "seperate" towns/settlements and are a little more centralised in terms of central buisness district. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jza84. The outlying settlement concept was one I had not really considered, but it makes sense. To incorporate towns, such as Leigh and Atherton, with distinct identities into the 'City of Wigan' would be difficult to justify. I certainly agree with the point regarding the CBD. Was just a question I'd considered whilst looking at the City status in the United Kingdom article. Thanks again. Man2 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As above Wigan is a lot more diverse than other small councils like Bolton which has double the population of Wigan Town itself, though it would have a good case should it ever try under the concept of a collective city e.g. Stoke made up of several distinct towns and was granted collective city status due to its size and historical importance. The reason they havent tried is their isnt a uniform "wigan" identity rather a northern half Wigan and southern half Leigh idendity

and if Standish is anything to go by their would be vocal opposition to being absorbed by a larger neighbours title. 83.104.138.141 (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Calmness please

Would all contributors to this page please respect wikipedia policy on civility and discuss things in a calm manner. That way we can all consider the arguments, and not the editors. Signing your contributions with four tildes (ie ~~~~) helps us to work out who said what, and implies that you stand by what you write. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is not a page for arguing amongst editors. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. This page is meant for debate over articles. How else could problems be sorted other than this? If you have nothing to add to the discussions on this page, please refrain from posting! Collin80.193.161.89 (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean

I don't understand the following sentence taken from the Early History section. "Whilst there is evidence of Roman activity, namely coins being found during construction work and the most recent finding, a hypocaust system discovered during the construction of the foundations for a new shopping centre in the town centre, there is no conclusive evidence of Wigan lying on the same site." If the construction was in Wigan town centre how can Wigan not be on the same site? Richerman (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I read it as "... there is no conclusive evidence of Wigan lying on the same site as Coccium." Mr Stephen (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok I see what it means now, thanks. I've reworded it to make it clearer. Richerman (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Pie Eaters

I have heard the "humble pie" explanation of the use of "Pie Eaters" before but in: Pies and Prejudice: In Search of the North by Stuart Maconie He states that there is no evidence for this and that in actual fact Wiganers just like pies. Should this be added to the section? Watford147 (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you be able to get hold of a quote? If you can cite the book as a source, preferably using a citation template, then sure, I think this could be added. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I do have the book myself, I'll dig it out tomorrow! I've never altered a page before so I'll give it a bit of thought. Thanks! Watford147 (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't feel apprehensive! Wikipedia is all about being bold! It'd be great to have you on board as an editor! --Jza84 |  Talk  12:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The way to do it is to leave in the original statement and add something like "however Stuart Maconie in his book "Pies and Prejudice: In search of the north" says that there is no evidence for this etc. etc." then put your reference at the end. For the reference the best thing to do is place the cursor where you want it to go and then go to the bottom of the screen and click on the ref & /ref enclosed in <> just underneath where it says wiki markup. I'm saying this because this inserts it in the right format. If you get it wrong the rest of the article can disappear completely, which is a bit scary the first time it happens - but easily fixed. As Jza says be bold! Richerman (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal

I've taken the following text out of the article:

The novel Rose by Martin Cruz Smith is centred around the Victorian era coal mining community in Scholes, a predominately poor Irish Quarter and is contrasted by conditions of the ruling local lord of the manor, based somewhat on The Earl of Balcarress of Haigh Hall, near Wigan.

The novel itself does not seem notable, certainly not as notable as Wigan Peer, and since it's a novel rather than historical commentary (such as the quotes from the antiquarians used elsewhere in the article) it's not exactly reliable. I understand the point is that the lord of the manor lived in better conditions than most of the town, but as he is the lord of the area it's hardly uprising and not something I think needs illustrating. If someone feels that it belongs in the article and can provide a convincing argument, please discuss it here. Nev1 (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Uncle Joe's Mint Balls

Main article: Uncle Joe's Mint Balls Uncle Joe's Mint balls are widely regarded as a vital part of Wigan culture and tradition by residents and visitors alike. The world famous confectioneries or 'sweets' as they are affectionately known by 'Wiganers' are on sale around the UK by William J. Santus & Co. through supermarkets such as Tesco. In popular culture, Uncle Joe's are made note of in the song by Mike Harding, and are always on the kitchen worktop by Mark and Jeremy's dining table in Channel 4's Peep Show.

I have removed the above text as it's unencyclopedic. Last time I did this, it was reinstated as an editor asserted that it was important to the culture of the town. Unfortunately, the text fails to say why this is or back up the claim. It's not notable that the sweets have been seen on TV or are sold nationwide, but what is notable is that the business that produces them is based in Wigan. As such the company is mentioned in the economy section, however I do not believe it belongs under the heading of culture. Nev1 (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4