Talk:Rude Britain

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 June 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
	It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Number[edit]

Top 21 huh? You people can't seem to count. There's 22 there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.47.166 (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why isnt "sluts hole lane" from Norfolk in there: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/150/372221374_5fd918df77.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.57.166 (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC) the link http://www.thisistravel.co.uk/travel/galleries/popup.html?in_gallery_id=471 is dead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.255.208 (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funbag Drive[edit]

There is no place called "Funbag Drive" in Watford...this is simply untrue. 82.5.68.95 (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top 30[edit]

I've removed the "Top 30" section due to a concern that the list in its present form may be inaccurate. Looking at the edit history, the list seems to have evolved over time and I worry that it may not reflect what the book actually says. We do have to consider whether reproducing the list from the book is particularly appropriate at all. I'm not sure at the moment so would welcome any other comments regarding this. Adambro (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thsi is an article about the book, and not a replication of its contents. As such, a few examples suffice, and listing the top 30 is simply not appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]