Talk:Crap Towns

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 September 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Worthy of Wikipedia?

Question to British editors: is this book notable enough for an article? If not, this might qualify as borderline listcruft. youngamerican (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably more notable as an internet phenomena and as an adjunct to The Idler than as a book... but it was a reasonably popular book that was properly distributed in stores etc... if that's what you mean. --Artw 17:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

phenomenON 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:459D:C5BD:A2FB:BB54 (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly a high-seller, that became a talking point in UK papers... perhaps some context of this could go into the article Robdurbar 16:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has no value whatsoever, the information it gives is clearly based on opinion and not fact, for example "South Woodham Ferrers" (tiny town with a population of 16000) is listed as 33rd whereas Chelmsford hasnt even made the list!! "London" is also listed but in addition a load of London Boroughs are also listed, so any London Borough not named still comes under the heading "London", and every major city has been mentioned except Newcastle - worthless nonsense Angryafghan 14:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devoid of encyclopedic value. I'll move this to Articles for deletion.

Martin Spamer

Who will rid me of this troublesome article? (Acknowledgements to King Henry II, and his comment about Thomas Becket.) It still appears to be sitting around, cluttering Wikipedia with advertising for some locally controversial but presumably very forgettable books. How does one go about deleting articles (or moving them to the 'deletion pile')? Ambiguosity (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing lists of towns

I have removed the lists of towns, on the grounds they are unencyclopedic and don't belong in Wikipedia.

The books are a bit of publishing fluff, but at least their existence is an irrefutable fact, so they probably deserve an article. But if we are going to start listing 'crap towns', then as an encyclopedia we need to make sure of our facts. A listing in one book isn't enough for something so open to debate. -- Chris j wood 11:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also given that the principal USP of these books is the list of towns, I believe that quoting that list verbatim is getting close to being a copyvio, if not actually one. -- Chris j wood 10:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think that the list is at least bordering on a copyvio, and support removing it: I believe similar lists have been removed from other articles for the same reason. Mark Grant 22:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list has been added again, without the responsible editor bothering to answer my points above, or even say anything in the comment entry. Reverting, at least until somebody bothers to answer my points above. -- Chris j wood 10:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of towns is relevant and should remain in the article. I haven't missed the irony that the people who most support removal of the list (or of this entire Wiki page) have close links with several of the Crap Towns listed, including Reading, Nottingham and Hull. The list IS relevant, in exactly the same way as the list of towns in the entry for It's Grim Up North is relevant. Whilst the Crap Towns list is not the result of rigorous research, it was based on reader input and deserves inclusion. User:Stetay 14:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don't quite know what you are doing on Wikipedia, but I'm here to help create a good, open, online encyclopedia. Mostly I deliberately edit articles on subjects that I don't have a close connection to, because I think a certain detachment adds to the quality of the article. If you care to actually look at my edit record, rather just jump to rather childish assumptions, you will see that most of my recent substantial edits have been to subjects around Boston, Massachusetts and Warsaw, neither of which figure on these rather pathetic little lists.

Secondly, I'm on Wikipedia to help create a good, open, online encyclopedia. And I'm damned if I understand why such an encyclopedia needs to cover such a fluffy, perhaps humerous, but certainly insubstantial subject. If you want us to have lists of 'crap' towns, I suggest you find some decent academic research on the subject and quote that, rather than something from The Idler. Otherwise we just end up with articles on airplanes on the moon, supported by references from the Sunday Sport. The guys from Encyclopedia Britannica must be laughing all the way to the bank over this article. -- chris_j_wood 16:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but the shiteness of living in England is something woefully underreported and under-appreciated abroad, where "Downton Alley" and rural detective drama paint an all-too-rosy picture of life in the UK. The sheer awfulness of England, its denizens, and their dwellings is something that a decent encyclopaedia ought to report on. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:459D:C5BD:A2FB:BB54 (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When Crap Towns was published, the media went into frenzy. It brought politicians out, and local newspapers began campaigns for the books to be banned from local bookshops. It is important for this reason. Whatever your interpretation of the content or the lack of rigor involved in the research, one cannot deny the impact it had at the time. It would seem that the contributors to the AFD page are in agreement, too. User:Stetay 17:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Fine. But in that case shouldn't the article contain some properly sourced information about that campaign. That would actually add something, whilst just listing the towns in question does nothing for the article as an 'article about the books'. -- Chris j wood 16:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely it should include that information - as I have said before. It would be very useful if someone could expand upon the controversy caused by the books. User:Stetay 17:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there hasn't been any more discussion on this, I've cut the list down to the top 10 votes as per the BBC article. I think that gives a fair representation without causing undue harm to the authors of the book, since the same information is readily available on the BBC site: having the whole list here seems excessive. Mark Grant 01:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree stongly on these grounds. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no reason to limit this list on this basis. GameKeeper 00:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my mistake , see from above reasoning way copyvio. Withdrawn. GameKeeper 00:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed uncited piece

I removed the following, as it seems to be the opinion of an editor. If you can cite a source please add it back. GameKeeper 08:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Furthermore, places such as Winchester and St Andrews, which made the Crap Towns Top 10 in the first edition, were deemed particularly odd inclusions as they are generally regarded as pleasant places to live within the UK (likewise with Bath, Windsor and Edinburgh in the second editon), although like all towns, they have their 'crap' areas.[reply]

Subjective and unscientific

Whilst the controversy these books stirred up in my view demands a place on Wikipedia, I don't think this article clearly portrays how biased, random and unscientific the methods behind the production of these 'lists' were. As far as I know there have never been any published figures to show how many or how few people voted for a particular town or even what proportion of visitors to the idler site bothered to vote or how visitor numbers increased after the publication of the books. Hull and Luton may have come out on top, but did they have 10 votes or 10,000? Could people vote for the same town more than once? Was voting averaged out to reflect a towns population? Was the whole thing simply a revenue generating stunt for the idler rather than any real reflection of popular opinion? How many copies of the book sold? At the moment the article is a very biased acceptance of these books as factual documents rather than publicity seeking POV exercises. Mighty Antar 15:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is just not clear why this page exists. As stated, it appears extremely subjective, and one assumes that methodology is not published anywhere on the web or in the books. A simple glance at the three top ten lists that are currently on display makes clear how poor the 'research' appears to be; generally survey responses do not change enormously over time, but in this case not one of the thirty listed locations appears in the top ten more than once! There is no consistent "number 1", and no consistent "top 3" or "top 5". That by itself suggests either extremely faulty methodology or even no meaningful survey data at all.

Is this Wikipedia entry just a form of publicity for books that otherwise might result in local opprobrium but remain unknown and uninteresting? It does not appear to provide any value as part of an encyclopaedia; I agree with the previous commenter in a different comment section: it should be deleted. Ambiguosity (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for fun

That book has been written just for fun and I'm amazed that there still are people who do not catch it. But nevertheless I'm glad, that Taunton is going to replace Bridgwater. That's the way justice's like... Kicior99 (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, too many editors with no sense of humour. --86.138.141.175 (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting Data

Under the 2nd image it states, 'Luton, Bedfordshire was the 2004 'winner'.' but in the survey section, it states '1. Bedford, Bedfordshire'. Bedford & Luton are both in Bedfordshire, but are certainly 2 very different towns. However, I'm unsure which of these conflicting pieces of data are in fact correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.227.91 (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, if I were to blind-drop you in a random street in Luton, or a random street in Bedford, you'd be hard-pressed indeed to be able to tell where you are. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:459D:C5BD:A2FB:BB54 (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some competitive editing recently. Luton was changed to Watford and then Watford to Bedford. If there's an owner of this page they might like to restore it? Chann94501 (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]