http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wigginss-achievements-set-to-become-a-hollywood-film

Really?

Wiggins’s achievements set to become a Hollywood film?

shouldn’t that be ” Wiggins’ “?

Tom Cruise?

Rhys Ifans is the favoured choice for the lead role

are you ****ing joking? he’s the most unathletic piece of spaghetti I’ve ever seen.

A) really? rather not now, and rather not hollywood, nice independant british film like Flying Scotsman would be better

B) you reckon? says the Daily Express… 😆 esteemed bastion of fact and calm fact checking…

who? Brad or Rhys?

By the way,

alfabus – Member

Wiggins’s achievements set to become a Hollywood film?

shouldn’t that be ” Wiggins’ “?

No, Wiggins’s is correct (or so I’m told by the other half who has these sort of discussions all the time with editors in the office. I also saw Julian Fellows’s TV show which explained the same thing.

However, someone will be along in a moment to say that the other way is correct.

Then someone else will say that language is organic and fluid (man) and that what’s correct is what people use.

However, someone will be along in a moment to say that the other way is correct.

Hello!

My understanding is that either is correct, but once you’ve decided which you’e going to do, stick to it. (and if you like, argue vehemently about it on the internet)

Myself, i fall on the Wiggins’ side of the argument.

“Wiggins’s” is the only correct option.

You others are confused.

Edit – you others are thinking of plurals.

Wiggins is not a plural, so yes it’s Wiggins’s. His family would be known as the Wigginses.

I wonder if something belonging to the family would be the Wigginses’ ?

I’m going to say Wigginses to keep the STW tradition of pointless contrariness going

Damn… molgrips’es’ post beat me to it

Oh! For ****‘s sake.

rich, is that belonging to **** or is there more than one ****?

So the conclusion is that they can never make the film, because the whole production would be beset by confusion as to whether it is wiggins’ or wiggins’s life story.

Probably for the best, it would almost definitely have been shite.

Dave

Do you mean one **** that has posession of a sake, or for the sake of several ****s? If the latter, then you’re wrong…

balls… also too slow. 🙁

Probably for the best, it would almost definitely have been shite.

this +1

And if he’s played by Rhys Ifans – Ifans’s portrayal of Wiggins’s life; production halts due to apostrophe uncertainties.

says the Daily Express

Wiggins’s is correct

It’s not definitive either way but depends which style-guide you follow. Names ending in a “zz” sound are often excepted because the singular possessive is awkward to pronounce with an added sibilant. Wiggins’s is an example of that.

Charlton Heston had the same problem making a film about Moses:

“Is this chariot Moses’s?”
“No, it’s Spartacus’.”