Talk:Essex

Page move

I have moved the "Essex, England" page to "Essex" as it is by far the most common usage of the word Essex, and links to it have been building up at a rapid rate. Warofdreams 17:22, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

East Anglia

I don't think we should be so adamant that Essex is not part of East Anglia. Many people consider the northern part, at least, to be so, as the Wikipedia East Anglia article acknowledges. Views? Barnabypage 12:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that Essex or any part of it is part of East Anglia. East Anglia is a region which in my and other peoples opinion should be defined by the historic ruling of the area by the East Angles in Saxon times. The northern border of the Saxon Kindgom of Essex (East Saxons/East Seaxe) is the River Stour, which is also the current boarder with modern day Suffolk, a county which was part of the Kingdom of East Anglia. The use of the term for residents of Essex is mainly used for three reasons:

1. As a Euphemism: Use it to hide that they are from Essex because people unfairly sterotype people from Essex. This will be more prominant in the north of the county because the north is essentially a beatiful rural area and the South is where the milder truth behind the stereotype exists in a more urban area.
2. Geography versus history: Essex sticks out of the East with East Anglia and is also rather flat in comparison to many parts of England. If you were going to section off and area with no prior knowledge of the county then about half of Essex could be naturally joined up with Norfolk and Suffolk. However East Anglia is not a definition of an area based on physical geography, it is based on historical population of an area.
3. The media: As a consequence to location of Essex, it is difficult to define. It is to the South East of England (although not in the official region), it is included in the East of England and some parts of the county where in what is now London. Although these parts are in London Boroughs, the post office has not come in line with the change, probably to allow it to sort the mail efficiently and many people who lived in Essex before it became London are still alive. As a consequence the media will often use several terms to describe the county if they do not say Essex. This is significant because people will often unquestionably follow what the media say. In addition I have heard the Mayor of London refer incorrectly to parts of the County of Essex as London before, mainly the areas which lie along the River Thames.

Ksbrown 16:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cuulturally, only that part of essex northeast of about Colchester, and down nearly to Maldon, has anything in common with Suffolk. The rest never was east-anglian at any stage: The name derives from "east saxon" after all. I was born in Essex, and now live in Lincolnshire, and in both cases there is the same curious trend. Essex is uniquely identified as itself. It seems perverse (as is the case with Lincolnshire and the east midlands) to attempt to lump it in with anything else. The old county boundaries have been around for a thousand years or so, surely it would be odd if by now they were irrelevant? Brunnian 16:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Greater London Urban Area

I'm confused by this statement: "Much of the Epping Forest district, consisting of the residential towns of Chigwell, Waltham Abbey, Loughton and Buckhurst Hill is more developed and forms an extension of of the Greater London Urban Area." - None of Essex nor the Epping Forest district form or are part of Greater London. I assume this was added by someone with limited knowledge of Essex, I feel it should be deleted as it is incorrect and only adds to the confusion regarding that part of West Essex.(Spymo (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

I'm inclined to agree that the statement risks causing confusion. Greater London is a political entity which contains parts of several counties including bits of traditional Essex, Kent & Herts to name but 3 adjacent counties (and all of Middlesex of course). Looking at Kent & Hertfordshire entries there is no allusion made there that they form an extension of the GL area and so it seems as though Essex has been considered by an editor in the past as uniquely relevant to GL. Since such editor has left us no reference to justify the statement it bears revision. There is no doubt that parts of Essex are within GL, there is no doubt that parts of Essex serve as commuter towns (in the same way as many towns in Kent and Herts) there is, however, doubt that such Essex towns are uniquely 'an extension' and so I will edit accordingly. DaveK@BTC (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If have made some minor changes because there seems to be some confusion about the definition of the Greater London Urban Area. You will see that this is not the same thing as Greater London, but includes (for census purposes) all areas that are geographically contiguous with the largest settlement in the area (i.e. there are no gaps of countryside between these areas). It is not true to say that 'parts of Essex are within Greater London', as Greater London (the political entity that is London) is a separately defined entity from Essex, and includes such places a Barking, Romford, etc which are not considered to be parts of Essex since 1965. However it is true to say that parts of Essex are within the Greater London Urban Area, such as Buckhurst Hill and Chigwell, although I do not believe Thurrock is included. This is because for example there are no gaps in settlement between Woodford (London) and Buckhurst Hill (Essex). This situation is not unique to this particular boundary, but it is worth noting because Buckhurst Hill, Loughton, Chigwell etc form sizeable settlements in terms of population, closely linked to London by road and tube. I imagine it must be quite confusing for residents, as one end of a street can be in London and the other in Essex, leading to totally different council services and elections. It would make more sense if Greater London (London) was defined politically as the Greater London Urban Area, but this is Britain and nothing is consistent! 79.70.54.38 (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would add, though, that having lived in parts of Greater London with Essex postal addresses for the majority of my life (although not for the past 20 years) and still having strong connections there, there remains a strong Essex affinity from those areas and residents there do associate themselves strongly with Essex in the same way as those in 'Kent' GLC boroughs will with Kent. Even more supportive of this is the case of Middlesex which ceased to exist in political terms entirely and yet still exists in current use with many interchangeably stating their origins as being Middlesex or London. DaveK@BTC (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Bromley but I HATE being associated with Kent! I have absolutely no affinity with the place and do not associate myself with it whatsoever. Justgravy (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

But nowhere has an 'Essex postal address' as postal counties were officially abolished by the Royal Mail in 1996. Therefore anyone writing 'Romford, Essex' is doing so because they feel that Romford is in Essex rather than because this is a required feature of the address. If I wrote 'Romford, Antarctica' the letter would still get there as long as the postcode was correct. This is all about people's personal affinities (by definition unencyclopedic) rather than geographical boundaries, and these affinities are themselves highly inconsistent: residents of Brixton don't have an affinity with Surrey and those in Lewisham don't feel Kentish, even those these places were formerly parts of these respective counties also. 79.66.227.13 (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Not so much affinity as culture. Culturally they consider themselves part of Essex and I think as long as there is a cultural attachment then they will continue to use Essex as part of their address. Of course, much of an address is redundant for postal purposes - all that is required is a house number and postcode for the vast majority of mail to get delivered, this doesn't make the street name or town any less real. DaveK@BTC (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Culturally what does that even mean? I'm pretty sure the young Pakistani-English ladies of Ilford are not getting spray tans and vajazzles! Justgravy (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

'Metropolitan Essex'

I think it is wrong that someone keeps on adding the vague reference to 'Metropolitan Essex' in the History section. Googling this term throws up only two results, one of which is this article, and I don't think it is a widely used or understood term. To quote one of the very citations that has been used to justify this inclusion: "'Metropolitan Essex' is not a term with a precise and generally-accepted meaning." Therefore it would seem obvious that the term has no place in an encyclopedic article. It seems to be a way of trying to reclaim for Essex the area that is now part of Greater London, and is thus not geographically accurate. Indeed the term is an oxymoron, as it entails the false assumption that an area can be part of London and Essex at the same time. This argument has already been had on wikipedia, and the overall consensus was that this is indeed a false assumption. Therefore I would politely request that the person concerned kindly refrain from re-including any mention of 'Metropolitan Essex' in this article. 79.70.32.137 (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with no reference to the invented term of Metropolitan Essex although, as per my view above, disagree that an area can not be part of both Essex and London. Politically lines can be drawn wherever politicians chose and so a part of Essex can suddenly become part of London for political and therefore administrative purposes but Essex still lives in the people, culture and other aspects of existence - would those living in Humberside consider themselves as anything other than from Yorkshire? DaveK@BTC (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course some older residents will have ties to the historic county, but administrative boundaries have been decided by consensus on wikipedia to be the final say on these matters. Otherwise we might as well say that Great Britain is an island in the north of the Roman Empire or that Algeria is a colony of France. These are also historically true. Also Walthamstow was historically just as much a part of Essex as Romford, the only difference is that one now has an 'E' postcode an the other doesn't (allow Romford was for many years an area within the 'E' postal district). But I don't think many people in Walthamstow think of their area as Essex. 79.66.227.13 (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

DaveK: Previously you agreed with me that 'Metropolitan Essex' was an inaccurate term and now you yourself have included a reference to it as a 'compromise' because another user insists on this inaccuracy. Inaccurate information should not be compromised on, edit war or no edit war. A single source, the 'Metropolitan Essex Cricket Board' (which I imagine very few people have even heard of) is not enough to convince that this term is in widespread usage. Indeed you say yourself that it is a term perpetuated by the cricket board, and thus is by definition in extremely limited usage and not worthy of encyclopaedic attention. This term has clearly been decided on by a board of sports-people with no political authority on this matter, as the name for their single organisation. Even if the term were in widespread usage, it signifies a contradiction and is thus unencyclopaedic. Including a reference just seems like a way to appease certain people in East London who would prefer that they still lived in Essex. I cannot understand your change of heart on this - should wikipedia also compromise with those that believe the earth is flat or that Diana was killed by aliens? I am thus again deleting the reference, especially as the link you placed to the cricket board is a dead link anyway. I am not trying to cause an edit war, I am trying to perpetuate accurate, encyclopaedic information. Furthermore someone totally deleted my careful and accurately-researched revision of the info pertaining to the Greater London Urban Area. I've now made even more effort to make the wording even clearer, so I hope it may stay this time. 79.66.129.6 (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear, I had first of all believed Met Essex was an invented term. The Met Essex Cricket Board (not a dead link at all, I've just checked it again) demonstrates it is in current usage and reflects a 'sentiment' or cultural attachment in outer parts of East London towards Essex. I did find other references using the term but less noteworthy ones. On this basis I felt that the sentence I placed as a compromise was worthwhile since it reflected that sentiment by using the Met Essex CB as an example. DaveK@BTC (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree! I don't think anyone who lives in Walthamstow or any other part of London that used to be part of Essex Romford included see themselves or the area as Essex. The term ‘Metropolitan Essex’, was created by ill educated people (mostly from London) and those who have any agenda to turn the County of Essex in to London. - If it is under the control of Essex County Council than its Essex simple.(Spymo (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

I have recently found that both the CofE and Roman Catholic dioceses of Essex includue many 'traditional' Essex boroughs; furthermore, as well as the Met Essex Cricket Board, the Essex Football League includes teams from many Greater London places including, for example, Romford FC - I am sure that there are many more examples. I am not suggesting that Esseex ought to lay claim to these traditional areas but I do feel that there ought to be some ackowledgement of the continued affinity. DaveK@BTC (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The Archdiocese of Chelsmford which you are referring to also includes Stratford, Walthamstow, East Ham, West Ham etc. In that case, would you prefer that the London 2012 Olympics changes to the Essex 2012 Olympics because it is hosted in Stratford? Also, the Essex Senior League (the football league you are referring to), has Bethnal Green FC in it, a team in Tower Hamlets, has been a part of London for over 100 years, and before that was a part of Middlesex, not even Essex. Your tenuous and unwarranted links have no foundation, politically, administratively, or even culturally, just some ill-informed people writing about what they do not know about. (82.10.87.105 (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC))

LOL - it took 2½ years to come out of your shell on this one? Oh, you haven't really have you, you are anonymous. I'm pretty sure I've never suggested Essex should lay claim to anything outside Essex, I have simply suggested that many folks in what is politically Greater London associate themselves culturally with Essex - this happens to be a fact irrespective of how well-informed they may or may not be; atheists could argue religious beliefs are based on poor information and yet no one questions the validity of that cultural/rational belief. Anyway, what will be will be, and what people think will remain what they think irrespective of what we write here. DaveK@BTC (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

2 1/2 years? This is the first time I've spoke about it. And thank you for disregarding everything I brought up to counteract your argument. Many people in the areas you mentioned also distinguish themselves from Essex culturally because of the fact that they have many London cultural emblems. Your comment on rational belief is also quite hilarious, as the fact that these places are so obviously part of London, having signs stating that it isn't in essex, by having the "London borough of" before their name, the fact that all the emergency services are London, the fact that they don't vote for Essex County Council but for the London Mayor and assembly, makes it a completely irrational belief, and therefore not a place for an encyclopedia. There is an element of confusion for the inhabitants of the area, but exaserbating it here is laughable. If people were more well-informed of the simplicity of it, it would not be an issue, they do not have this false cultural affinity which is practically non existant. You are also talking as if this is a sudden thing - it's been this way for 45 years. (82.10.87.105 (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC))

It has been 2½ years since I posted my comment. Frankly I can't be bothered to spend time in war of words. If I have disregarded anything you said it is because so many institutions still think of Essex in its traditional rather than current ceremonial context, not just football and cricket but even commercial organisations. I will not bother replying again to an IP address. I have stated my opinion, it is my opinion and nothing more, it is valid, however I have decided not to make changes to the article (which I still believe should be made) unless there is consensus on this page. DaveK@BTC (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

IP addresses don't make comments, so you are not replying to one. Also, you have been happy to reply to them previously, so don't try and use that as an argument. Simply because commercial companies are ignorant doesn't mean an encyclopedia should be. I'm glad noone agrees with your bogus assumptions. (82.10.87.105 (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC))

I have to agree with the IP address user. Fortunately, as the traditional, old people die or move away, and people from other countries with no "historical connections" whatsoever move there, and the transport links improve; areas like Romford in 50 years time will be what Wembley is today. Which is "culturally" just as "London" as Mile End. Justgravy (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverts

What is the point of anybody contributing to this page? I have noticed that MrStevieC almost always automatically reverts any addtions back to his last version? Angela Bodart 10 July 2006

Good edits are welcomed, but often data added is irrelevant, unverifiable, repeated, factually innacurate or requires copyediting to conform to the maual of style or to be considered brilliant prose. This article, like many others, has developed by a collaboration of added content and copyediting. If every addition was automatically reverted as you claim, there would be no changes made in the content at all over time, and this is clearly not the case. Adding content provides no guarantee that it will not be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others. MRSC 10:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Regional history

Essex was part of the South East England region until 1994, when it was moved, along with Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, into the East Anglia region, which was then re-named East of England region.

This is innacurate. Before 1994 Essex was in the East of England Civil Defence Region and the South East Standard Statistical Region. Essex became part of the newly formed (not merged, transferred or renamed) East of England Government Office Region in 1994 but was statistically counted as part of the South East until 1999 (when statistical regions changed to match the Government Office Regions). MRSC 11:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Your spelling of 'innacurate' is inaccurate!! The Civil Defence Region as it existed between 1948-2004 was known as East or Eastern, rather than East of England; see [1] and [2]. The Government Office was itself called 'Eastern' until 1999 [3] and it was only then that the term 'East of England' was coined to describe the conjoined East Anglia/northern Home Counties area. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.194.86.1 (talk • contribs) .

Hang on a minute. There is no need to point out spelling errors on talk pages. That is very bad form. It also doesn't make any odds, the original text was in error. MRSC 21:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? If you can't spell a simple word how do you expect your comments to be taken seriously? Smurfmeister (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the discussion is about regional boundaries, not spelling. Barnabypage (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.essexclubbing.co.uk/

I don't believe we should link to this, as its relevance to the article is tangential. (Were the article specifically about nightlife or entertainment in Essex, maybe.) See Wikipedia:External_links which advises against linking to "sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject". Does anyone have differing views? Barnabypage 15:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of people would consider that nightlife is one of Essex's defining features as a county, and since essexclubbing.co.uk is an independent and comprehensive NPOV guide I don't see any problem with it being included --Beachy 17:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But will it add to any reader's understanding of the subject 'Essex' in an encyclopedic (as opposed to travel-oriented or what's-on-guide) way? Barnabypage 21:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Having now looked at the page's history and seen the number of times it has been reverted, I suggest it might be a candidate for Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Barnabypage 21:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so you're one of these wiki editors with plenty of time on your hands then, eh? --Beachy 04:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It takes about three minutes to add an RFC... Barnabypage 14:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment: essexclubbing.co.uk

This is a dispute as to whether a link to the site www.essexclubbing.co.uk is appropriate to Wikipedia. (See the Talk section above for some dialogue on this.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barnabypage (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Outside comments

• The link doesn't seem appropritate to me. I usually reserve the External links section for official external links (plus maybe a few others). But once you start allowing all these "guides" you'd see that section grow too rapidly. ==Taxico 14:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• This link is definitively inappropriate. WP:NOT a nightclub guide. Maybe the Essex girl article, but even then it's still too tangential. JChap2007 03:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

External Links

The following comments have been posted in User Talk sections and merit wider review:

Why do you keep deleting the link to essexweekly, i really like this site and the information that it gives about essex. What is the point of deleting the link. Are you deleting because you have some commercial interest in the other links which as for commercial sites. Perhaps they should be deleted from the links area ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newchauncey 10:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You asked why I removed the link to 'Essex News'. I did so because it is yet another directory listing site (of which there are many) pretending to be a news site. There is a good directory sites already listed (dmoz) and authoritative news sites also already listed and there is no need to add more. I will add this response and your original note into the talk section for the Essex page so others may also consider this. DaveK@BTC 12:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC).

Oh - and no I do not have any commercial interests in the other links. I remain of the view that this additional link is unnecessary. DaveK@BTC (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not a directory listing site pretending to be a news site. If you look, it actually makes films about news and events going on in Essex. I think to state that it is pretending to be anything could be seen as defamation of the site brand. I think that if someone is going to the trouble of making films and presenting relevant news to people in Essex it deserves to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newchauncey 18:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at the site but remain of the view it is not an appropriate addition to the links - it may well be useful for other reasons and to some people but that does not of itself merit its inclusion. Check out WP:EL - in reviewing this I am not convinced that the addition of either further news sources or directories are necessary. There is, indeed, a question in my mind as to whether any news sources are actually relevant since news is largely transitory and it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to provide transitory information (having conducted a random sample of other county entries I did not find any links to news services in their External Links section). Out of interest, do you have any relationship with the Essex News site since if you do you may have a conflict of interest under WP:EL. I have not, as you will have noted, deleted it again and am hoping that others may feel like giving a further opinion. DaveK@BTC 21:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png

Image:EH icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

County Motto

An IP user recently added a 'Motto' to the factbox. I am almost certain this is not the correct motto although despite an extensive trawl of the county council website have been unable to find an alternative motto - the closest there is, is the 'slogan' "Essex Works". I have marked the item as requiring citation and if no such evidence is provided in next few days I will deleted. DaveK@BTC (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing infoboxes

If you like adding infoboxes, candidates within Essex are here. --Magnus Manske (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Weddings

I haven't reverted it, but I'm not convinced by the recent edit adding information about the number of weddings in Essex. Is there any evidence that the county is unusual in this respect? Per the figures given by the editor, there is one wedding per year for approximately each 250 people in Essex - and this correlates very closely indeed with the national ratio of weddings to population (see http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=322). Barnabypage (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've now removed the paragraph, per the point above, and also the figures given in the weddings paragraph and elsewhere in the Economy section which show that the weddings industry accounts for only about 0.6 percent of the county's economy. It's WP:UNDUE. Barnabypage (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Past and present parishes in Essex

After creating this message, I will be adding a mention of a past parish in Essex, namely Great Pardnon (I'm doing this first so I can create a link in the summary section). I stumbled onto reference of this while searching for other citations, and the first thing I had to figure out was whether it was a typo or not. I found a very helpful citation at British History Online, which I commend to any editors looking for historical information. In answering my own question about Great Pardnon, I looked to see if there was a Wikipedia article on it (there isn't), or alternatively, an article of relevance.

The most relevant article appears to be this one. As contributing editors to this article will be aware, geo-political boundaries (in the broad sense of the term) change over time, and in the process, links to historical information can become circuitous at best. At worst it becomes lost to new generations. To this end, I think it worthwhile that a section on parishes, past and present should be considered, if there is enough information out there to warrant such a section. If not, it can be incorporated in the history section I guess.

I don't have time to do justice to such an exercise for this article, but I can at least provide this comment and place the citation I found in the nearest relevant section. That appears to me to be the History section. The nearest relevant subsection is 'Ancient history', preceding the 'Modern period'. As I type this, it occurs to me that a subsection between these two called 'Recent history' may be useful, so I'll create that and add the citation there. I will have to leave expansion of this section to others, but there will be no shortage of information available to draw on, perhaps starting with British History Online and relevant council sites. Wotnow (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: A new subsection didn't seem necessary in the end, as the paragraph seemed to fit readily enough in the 'Ancient history' section, providing (currently) a natural flow-on to the 'Modern period' section. If perchance such information is expanded, it may then prove useful to create a separate sub-section. Wotnow (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirects

Proposed R.F.D of the following redirects as there is no content in the article Essex for any of the following redirects

1. Wright's Green
2. Willingale
3. Willow Green
4. Willows Green
5. Wimbish Green

Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

non-metropolitan = ?

What does that non-metropolitan mean? It does not have any metropolitan area? That would be strange, to refer to whole county by the existence of metropolitan areas. Or is it about something else? 85.217.15.10 (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It presumably means it is not a metropolitan county. Barnabypage (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If it means that, it could/should be linked to that. If it makes sense to link non-metropolitan to metropolitan. Hey, it could be linked like non-metropolitan, or what? But, if it is not sure, then probably not yet. 85.217.15.10 (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

District Numbering

The County Council and two Unitary Authorities have numbered the districts in a manner which contradicts the png file in the information box.

The numbering according to the councils is as follows: 1. Uttlesford 2. Braintree 3. Colchester 4. Tendring 5. Harlow 6. Epping Forest 7. Chelmsford 8. Maldon 9. Brentwood 10. Basildon 11. Rochford 12. Thurrock (Unitary Authority) 13. Castle Point 14. Southend-on-Sea

Unfortunately I cannot quote a document to substantiate these claims, however if you care to look at a traffic signal controller (traffic lights) you will see that the number for the district is quoted, for example there could be a puffin crossing in Uttlesford numbered 01N12 or a junction in Basildon numbered 10J12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twamgle (talk • contribs) 17:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No mention of the coastline?

Surprised there isn't a sentence regarding Essex's long and winding coastline... I have seen claims that Essex has the longest coastline in England - I don't know if that's true, but irrespective of that, some mention of just how much coast\riverbank in the county is warranted in the geography section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.131.38 (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I came to the Essex page looking for information about its physical features, and found almost nothing other than that its highest point isn't very high. What is the coastline like? The rivers? The soils? The weather? What kinds of crops are grown? What are the forests like? Rosieredfield (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

No mention of xenophobia?

The article should include mention of the polonophobic attacks on Polish EU citizens, one of which was fatal. 159.205.186.224 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Essex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120308151700/http://www.chelmsford.anglican.org/did-you-know-deprivation-in-chelmsford-diocese.html to http://www.chelmsford.anglican.org/did-you-know-deprivation-in-chelmsford-diocese.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111009103401/http://www.clactonandfrintongazette.co.uk/news/colchester/1901353.Jaywick__Village____third_most_deprived_area_in_UK___/ to http://www.clactonandfrintongazette.co.uk/news/colchester/1901353.Jaywick__Village____third_most_deprived_area_in_UK___/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Essex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140203003641/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/3361038/Britains-richest-towns-20-11.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/3361038/Britains-richest-towns-20-11.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Essex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sert.org.uk/faqs.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Essex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126181139/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/bound_map_page.jsp?first=true&u_id=10001079&c_id=10001043 to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/bound_map_page.jsp?first=true&u_id=10001079&c_id=10001043
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814005556/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10135618 to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10135618
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126181401/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10186092&c_id=10001043 to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10186092&c_id=10001043
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930181318/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/bound_map_page.jsp?first=true&u_id=10186092&c_id=10001043 to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/bound_map_page.jsp?first=true&u_id=10186092&c_id=10001043
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130915044759/http://www.thurrock.gov.uk/news/content.php?page=story&ID=134 to http://www.thurrock.gov.uk/news/content.php?page=story&ID=134
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100412155916/http://www.colchestermuseums.org.uk/castle/castle_index.html to http://www.colchestermuseums.org.uk/castle/castle_index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes to dealing with UK counties

If anyone is interested, please look here [4]. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Population Changes

Can the population for the county please be updated to the 2019 figures. The side bar states 2019 in brackets, but the figures are actually still from 2018.

The 2019 Non-Metropolitan Population is now: 1,489,189

The 2019 Ceremonial County Population is now: 1,846,655 (Non-Metropolitan Population + 2 Unitary Authorities (Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock))

Source here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/populationestimatesforukenglandandwalesscotlandandnorthernireland

Hyperlinks on bold text on 'Politics' tab should be transferred to the 'See also' section of the article

In my opinion, the hyperlinks contained within the bold text on the 'Politics' tab should be transferred over to the 'See also' section as in my opinion it looks strange to have hyperlinks on the bold text. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

PP

Southend is not page protected, will we have to PP this as well?Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Parishes project

I have started a project for missing civil parishes at User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes. These may actually be an alternative name in the 1st case or overwise overlap in the 2nd. These are redirects but may need separate articles. They are:

• Barling Magna
• Mayland, Essex

A total of 2, see User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes (2)#Essex. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Definitions

I believe this article is about the ceremonial county of Essex. Therefore, why is so much space taken up with text about other units that just happen also to be called Essex? Not only is that unnecessarily complicating this article, it is surely superfluous and off-topic. Why don't we, in the London (England) article, devote a meaty sub-section to London (Ontario), followed by a further lengthy sub-section on all the other Londons dotted around the globe? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Such as?Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

Southend-on-Sea is not a Unitary Authority, it was until becoming a city and was never administered as part of Greater London. So the article should read " which excludes the unitary authority of Thurrock, and the areas administered by the Greater London Authority." Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Suggested removal of "Metropolitan Essex"

So this is something that was discussed decades ago above, but as time passes is increasingly out of place.

The wording, simply, is wrong. "Metropolitan Essex refers to places in Essex that form part of the conurbation and/or the metropolitan area of London, including the five boroughs of Greater London" - If the areas are in Greater London, they are not in Essex. The fact a separate map needs to be provided just to show what these area's are (given all other current maps of Essex do not include them) is somewhat telling.

There is a single source, and even then this source is a historical resource. It was published in 1966 (when the area had only just left Essex), and was covering the history of the area from 1850 - this is not a modern day resource.

To put simply, this term is not in extensive use - and appears to have been a temporary measure in the years around the changeover from Essex to Greater London for these areas. They no longer belong within the modern borders of Essex, and have not done so for decades. This section provides no new information that is not either covered elsewhere, or which informs the reader in any meaningful way - whilst potentially confusing the reader into believing these areas are still in Essex. There is no modern day relevance of these areas to Essex, and in the same sense there is no modern day relevance presented to the term "Metropolitan Essex". Garfie489 (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The reference, which is good, appears pretty clear to me in defining what Metropolitan Essex is. Also, please avoid breaking up your posts with line gaps, it looks messy and can be a distraction. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Whether it is clear in its definition or not is besides the point. The source is extremely outdated, and singular - it is the ONLY source that uses the phrase, and has no authority to state that this is a fact (such as Government data, etc). All searching for the phrase "Metropolitan Essex" leads either to Wikipedia articles citing this single source, or places listing this single source. Given the timing of this single sources publication, there are very good reasons to doubt the common usage of the single sources vocabulary - as it was made at a time the area left Essex, so a word would have been needed to describe the area unambiguously. Fact is, we cant allow single sources to name areas what they like without common usage, then report on them as if this is a common phrase for the area - especially for an area as large as this one. Im sure many people have nicknames for their local area - whether theyve written a book on them 50 years ago or not is not the standard that should be set Garfie489 (talk) 07:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Additionally - To quote the source itself "Metropolitan Essex' is not a term with a precise and generally-accepted meaning.". It is also not a definition of Essex, as suggested by the layout of the article, and certainly shouldnt have a paragraph with maps dedicated to it in the same way actual counties do so. There is consensus above from over a decade ago that the term "Metropolitan Essex" is simply invented, and should really have been dealt with at that time. We could easily go about making well defined areas on a whim, but those areas should be generally accepted or in common use - both of which the singular source acknowledges to not be the case. Garfie489 (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The source was published in 1966, after GL. It is quoting something that talks about the conurbation of Greater London anyway, which is not the same as the GL county of 1965. I saw this title on google scholar "Suburbanisation in Metropolitan Essex: The Interrupted Development of a Repton Park at Highams", came up first, but haven't checked it - published 1986. Now, see wp:BRD. You removed a whole section with its citation because you did not think it worthy of inclusion. I reverted that and asked you to stay on the talk page. Your next step is to discuss, not to revert my reversal. Period. Common usage is what RSSs use. If you don't like the source, discuss it to get consensus it is unreliable. That source is okay. You might not like what it says but tough! (I've given a second source now anyway). Until you grasp that life isn't a series of straight lines with rigid well defined rules that must be adhered to and words like nuance, subtlety, and ambiguity actually mean something, and describe real life situations, then you will have a hard time on Wikipedia. Not liking one phrase in a subsection (metropolitan Essex), which is cited, and then, after starting to edit war because your bold step was undone, blasting the whole subsection to oblivion, comes across as a bit of a tantrum outburst. Please, argue your point on the talk page. And don't start a discussion there and before anyone has had a chance to reply, decide consensus gives you the right to do what you want. Despite these excessive edits, I think your edits are generally helpful, by the way. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to say "Metropolitan Essex" exists as a concept - but that concept is not formally defined. I agree, life is not a series of straight lines - yet this section tries to do exactly that. The section attempts to formally define "Metropolitan Essex" in a way which the source itself does not. We are literally providing a map and saying "here are the lines", this is what the boundaries are.

What would be better is for this section moved into a one line comment on the Ancient County section simply stating "The difference in border between Ancient and Modern county may sometimes be described as Metropolitan Essex". Fact is, the borders are not agreed upon - it shouldnt written in the way it currently is. We can see this for example as the only colloquial use of "Metropolitan Essex" is by a local Cricket board - yet the definition they use is very different to the one cited in this article. Including places like Epping, Abridge, etc - which do not fall within the borders written by this article.

The additional source you cite btw is also historical. Thus it is talking about a period the area was Essex, from a time when it wasnt. Thus again it makes sense to use "Metropolitan Essex" in this context. Im not suggesting no one uses the phrase, it is not however advocating a formal definition of what Metropolitan Essex actually is, and again we fall into the issue where the only source we have that tries to tell us what Metropolitan Essex is... explicitly states it is not a formal, precise, generally accepted definition. Thus deletion of the section is appropriate, and instead it should be worked into other sections where relevant in the context of what the sources are actually saying. Its probably also worth reordering the list of these counties as per WP:UKCOUNTIES. Arguably the entire definitions section is against WP:UKCOUNTIES, but thats a much bigger discussion - at the very least the section discussed here is not a formal definition of the county as a whole, unlike the others provided. It just simply doesnt fit. Garfie489 (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it better in some way to use the term in relation to London metropolitan area or Greater London Built-up Area, and keep local authority areas out of it. It simply deals with urban sprawl of London and Essex is a convenient adjective that does not imply anything about the current status of Essex. I agree it needs to be re-arranged and re-edited. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

So... put a short one line sentence into the ancient county? - because thats all it really needs when placed in context. Garfie489 (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

That's probably the best place for it if worded carefully. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I've only just seen the change and partly re-done it. I have removed what is both opinion and simply wrong. Nothing in 1965 was transferred anywhere. This is interesting because it does not relate to the is/was problem. Instead it illustrates something I have often said, that assuming ancient counties were changed or no longer exist leads to illogical and incorrect English. Here, 1965 changed HC Essex not one jot. It relates to the 1889 and the 1965 versions of Essex. Second, one county was abolished and another created, nothing was transferred except responsibility for local govt. Finally, this also shows how careless editors are in misusing sources. Sorry Garfie, but how can you misrepresent what the source says so profoundly? It is one sentence but you have totally changed it to something that is pure invention. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not an opinion, it is guidelines. WP:UKCOUNTIES states "In respect of England, Scotland and Wales, a fundamental part of this guide is to reaffirm the long established position that we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries." - If you want to change that guideline, then go ahead. But until then, past tense referral is a correct way to refer to historic counties.

In fact, you could arguably take it a stage further and remove the entire section covering the definition all together - given we do not take the view as per guidelines it still exists with the former boundaries. Thus the entire section should be moved into history where best possible. Now personally im not going to be putting effort in to push that through - but referencing the county in past tense seems a fair compromise as per guidelines. Also i did not represent the source, i used the wording that was already in use in the article and replaced it - again, introducing new wording was something i assumed likely to cause contention, so stuck to what had already been there. Garfie489 (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with removal. It is a term only used in one source. MRSC (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Garfie, quit while you're (fractionally) ahead. Your last post should be framed. "It doesn't matter what sources say because we can agree to ignore them and write what we want". I'm neutral on whether to mention the term or not. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I see that non compliant wording that is inaccurate has just been reverted back in. As Garfie says above, the only WP:RS we are citing (British History Online) is from a piece published in 1966, an excerpt from "A History of the County of Essex: Volume 5", and this being the case, the piece was almost certainly actually written before that part of Essex became a part of the county of Greater London in 1965. In any case, it is worded loosely to describe a loosely defined term. If this area were still part of Essex, as is asserted by some, then a more exact and more up to date source would be required. The second source given is simply not a WP:RS. There is discussion here to find a suitable consensus, and no reverts should be made back to a form of wording that does not enjoy editor consensus, that is also incorrect. Indeed, as we all know, it is a form of wording that does not conform to Wikipedia's own guidelines at WP:UKCOUNTIES. I see Garfie489 has restored the version just reverted, and I support that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox images

The infobox collage has been disputed, so we need to have a discussion about which images should be included in it. @Slatersteven @Chocolateediter A.D.Hope (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Well the county seat is one we should have. Slatersteven (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. We should include one of the county's main settlements, but it doesn't matter whether it's Southend, Colchester, Chelmsford, or Basildon. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

For my part I think the image of The Hythe is decent enough and should stay. I don't love either the image of pargeting or the university towers, but I do think it's important to have one historic and one contemporary image. Pargeting is distinctive to East Anglia so it would be good to retain it, but I'm very open to a different modern aspect of Essex being included. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I think pargeting and uni towers could go in landmarks, that would be if it expanded into an architecture section. See Yorkshire for what I mean as landmarks and places of interest are doing the same thing at the moment in this article. The cathedral can stay or go there also if another landmark is chosen for the infobox. I suggest "Epping Forest June 2022 1.jpg" as a replacement for pargeting. Ping me if you want me to start on an architecture section. Chocolateediter (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The lead images should take priority over those in the body, I think. If an image is lead-worthy but currently in 'landmarks' then it can be moved from the latter to the former. Personally I'd keep pargeting over Epping Forest, we've already got a natural image with the Hythe salt marsh. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I have WP:BOLDLY changed one of the images in the infobox, namely replacing the tower blocks with an image of Dovercourt Lighthouses. I guess the tower blocks image was put in to represent Colchester and modernity, but does it? I don't think so. Firstly they represent the University of Essex rather than Colchester and secondly the 1960s is hardly modern now. Also, there is nothing particularly "Essex" about them. The image doesn't inspire me to check out facts about what is in effect student accommodation. The Dovercourt Lighthouses on the other hand though not modern are intriguing and perhaps unique to the county (though I don't know if similar ones remain elsewhere). The picture is also a representation of Essex's coastline (the Maldon image doesn't really do this). Also, nearby Harwich is the operational HQ of the lighthouse authority. Open to anything better, but I believe the lighthouses to be an improvement over the tower blocks. Rupples (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the lighthouse image, represents the county well, and looks nicer than the tower blocks. If we need an image of the University of Essex, we could also add that under the education section. I have a good image for that. Liam344BW (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The new image is different, but I'm not sure it's an improvement in terms of representing Essex. The image of the salt marsh at Maldon is coastal, so that aspect of the county is covered, and there's now no representation of any of the major settlements; the previous image also had the benefit of representing the UAE, which I'd consider one of Essex's major institutions. My preference would be for an image which showed contemporary, urban Essex, but haven't been able to find an appropriate one so far. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, the Devon infobox collage put up in the infobox image guideline as representing good practice includes images of both the coast and a lighthouse. The guideline does suggest an image of a major settlement is included but makes no mention of an institution. Dovercourt/Harwich may not be one of the largest settlements in Essex, but it's not exactly minor either. Anyway, let's see what others think. Rupples (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

In Devon's case the lighthouse is included because it's in Plymouth, which is one of the county's major settlements. The second paragraph of the lead usually mentions the largest settlements in a county, in this case Southend, Basildon, Colchester, and Chelmsford, and they're the ones which should be included in the infobox if possible. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you agree with me that the University of Essex towers image represents an institution rather than one of the county's major settlements? Rupples (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It represents both, as the towers are in Southend. I don't think it's a great photo, though. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not a big fan of not including an image of a modern structure in the infobox. The current compositon is a bit twee and coast-focussed, and omits the conurbations in the south of the county. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Disagree with your "twee" description and for that matter "coast-focussed". The images are fine and represent the county better than the previous tower blocks. Why do you want to include a "modern structure"? Other discussed infobox collages such as North Yorkshire and Devon don't. Your choice of the marshes and pargeting are excellent — please leave be and let other contributors choices stand unless they're seriously objected to by other editors. Rupples (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I have a serious objection to the lack of urban/modern representation in the collage; note that I didn't specify that the image you chose was the problem, we could swap out one of the others.

The county infobox collages should be thematic, and a major 'theme' of Essex is that it includes significant urban areas which expanded fairly recently. These aren't represented in the current collage, but an image of a landmark in one of them would do nicely. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The collage is thematic. That the urban areas are a "major theme" of Essex is merely your interpretation. Rupples (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The guideline states that it's 'desirable' to include a major settlement, Rupples. We currently don't, but easily could. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I've swapped out the lighthouse for Brooke House in Basildon, which is a Grade II listed block of flats in the town centre. I think it fits the guidelines well, but there may be other options. For the record, the placement of the image was determined by its portrait orientation; if it had been landscape I would have swapped out the pargeting. I'm not trying to privilege my own choices, in other words. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

And I've reverted, noting that you didn't remove one of the images put in by yourself. Rupples (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I've explained why I did so above. I expected better from you than a bad-faith accusation. I'm going to remove the collage entirely, as it's clearly still too contentious to be stable. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

What 'bad-faith' accusation? I stated a fact. The collage was stable until you came along earlier this evening, reopening the discussion. I asked politely you leave be, but no . . . Rupples (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Unless I've misunderstood, and I'd be very happy if I have, you 'noting' that I didn't remove one of the images I chose read as though I was claiming WP:OWNERSHIP rather than it being done for the reasons I gave in the previous comment.

I've said earlier that I'm not attached to the pargeting image, but the lighthouse and tower block images are both portrait and the pargeting one is landscape. One portrait and one landscape image generally works better than two of either type, that's all. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Since it looks as though we have a fundamental difference of opinion on what best represents Essex it may be preferable for us both to step back and leave the choice of images to others. I'm willing to, are you? Rupples (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Surely its not beyond our combined wit to find an acceptable set of images? We worked together perfectly well on the North Yorkshire collage, after all.

I must admit that I like the top image, as it parallels Suffolk and Norfolk and that's quite satisfying. The other two I'm less bothered about, except that we should give some idea that Essex has some large settlements – Suffolk has an image of Ipswich, Lancashire includes Blackpool, Wiltshire includes Swindon, that sort of thing. It can still be a 'pretty' image, if we can find them. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry, got a bit narked last night seeing the lighthouses removed. Now you mention it, maybe I was exhibiting signs of ownership. Could also have an aversion to 60s/70s tower blocks! Rupples (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I can entirely understand that! Don't worry, we all have those moments – no harm done. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

What about Southend pier? Iconic as it's the longest pleasure pier in the world and the view includes Southend landscape so representing the largest settlement. [5] The marshes don't necessarily represent the coast to my mind, so don't see too much of an overlap. Rupples (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

That particular image isn't the most flattering, and the cityscape might look a bit indistinct at infobox size, but in principle it could work. I did also consider the bell tower of St Martin of Tours in Basildon, but finding a good image is proving tricky. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the bell tower image the buildings on the left looked warped, leaning. Unfortunately, none of the Southend Pier images fit well. One Brutalist style tower that looks fine with either the lighthouses or the pargeting and the marsh is this one in Chelmsford.[6] The bas-relief pattern and curtain feature make it a bit more interesting than tower blocks of similar age. Rupples (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph incorrect?

The opening paragraph states the city of Southend-on-Sea as being the largest settlement in Essex... however in the second paragraph it states Colchester has a higher population. Does the opening paragraph need changing to reflect this or is there another reason Southend is regarded as the largest settlement? Magpie069 (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Even looking at other potential definitions, such as physical size, Southend doesnt win out. Mentioning Colchester as the largest settlement, with Chelmsford as the county town is likely the most logical approach here. Garfie489 (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Southend has the largest built-up-area as defined by the ONS, followed by Basildon, Colchester, and Chelmsford. If you look at district populations the order is Colchester, Chelmsford, Basildon, Southend, but districts often include areas far beyond the core settlement (e.g. the district of Chelmsford covers a good chunk of central Essex) so we don't typically use them for settlement population stats. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

However, much of the City of Southend-on-Sea is not a built up area, therefore identifying Southend as the largest built up area should not refer to the city. Just as much of the City of Chelmsford lies outside the county town. Kevin McE (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Both settlements are commonly referred to as cities in reliable sources, so there's no reason not to do the same in this article. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

both may be described as cities, neither is regularly referred to as 'city of ....' espeially when the reference is specific to the settlement rather than the borough level entity. Even ifone believes that there is no reason not to include the description (and I have provided a reason not to above, and another in this ), I would suggest that there is absolutely nothing to be gained by doing so. It is not normal practice in English to include a descriptor of the status of a settlement in naming it. Kevin McE (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems a shame to exclude the information, but if you're set on doing so I don't want to argue the point. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It is possible to mention the city status of area in other ways, as I have now done in the opening section. Kevin McE (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It's one method, although I'd prefer to put the information in a note, like this. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. Kevin McE (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope: Please clarify in what way this conversation mandates by consensus inclusion of descriptions of settlements in the introduction.. It seems to me that you explicitly concede here that they do not. "I don't want to argue the point", but you edit in that way without furthering the argument. Kevin McE (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The last two messages of this discussion (25 and 28 October) show me suggesting this form of the lead, and you agreeing to it. The wording agreed them went unchanged until the 25 November, when you seem to have changed your mind. I've restored the previous wording as it was stable up to that point and you'd previously accepted it. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The edit of mine that you cite is not even in the introduction section, so has zero relevance to the discussion at hand. You sought agreement to putting the note about city status as a footnote, not to including the imprecise descriptive phrase in the introduction. Kevin McE (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The edit I cited is the last of five you made on the 25 November which also altered the lead, but I can understand that you may have forgotten making them.

I sought agreement for the version of the lead I linked to, including the 'city of...' wording. There's no need for the note if the lead text doesn't mention city status, so I assumed this was clear, but perhaps I was mistaken. In any case, I belive the note is a reasonable compromise and oppose removing the 'city of...' text. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

So you cited the wrong edit, but refuse to acknowledge your error. Noted.

You sought permission to put the city status in a footnote " I'd prefer to put the information in a note": that is what I had no difficulty in consenting to. If you think I was agreeing to re-adding imprecise descriptions that are by no means ordinary or necessary phrasing, you are very much wrong. So there is no consensus here for that wording. Kevin McE (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I cited an edit which didn't include changes to the lead, and I apologise for that. This is the most relevant edit.

At the time it seemed clear that my proposal was to refer to Southend, Colchester, and Chelmsford as cities in the body text and include a note to explain that it was their namesake districts which were granted city status. The fact no further objections were raised in this discussion or changes made to the text for a month renforced this impression. However, as this was not the case and you clearly object further discussion is needed.

My position is that the use of 'city of...' in the lead is within the spirit of the WP:UKCITIES guideline on city status created this August, which in effect allows settlements to be referred to as cities provided reliable sources do so. A.D.Hope (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it your contention, therefore, that every time Chelmsford (for example) is mentioned in Wikipedia, the spirit of that guideline is that it must be referred to as the city of Chelmsford? Is that the case when it is the city of Chelmsford that is being referred to, or the City of Chelmsford? Is the same principle to be applied to every settlement: should we always write "town of Basildon" rather than just Basildon? Must every reference to Sible Heddingham be changed to "village of Sible Heddingham"?

Even if a place can accurately be given a designation, that does not mean that it is normal practice to do so, and it seems particularly inappropriate for an encyclopaedia to do so in a way in which the meaning is ambiguous. Kevin McE (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

No, that isn't my contention. My position is that the 'city of...' wording is an easy way to mention city status in the lead, and the current consensus is that it's fine to call settlements cities if reliable sources do even if its the district which was granted the status. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

If we are going to mention the designations of the local authority areas, then it seem to me that that is far better done by doing so while talking about local authority areas as I proposed some time ago. The current wording is (I would suggest) clumsy English, ambiguous as to the area referred to, and unclear as to whether this accounts for all the areas that are anything other than 'normal' boroughs. Kevin McE (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

We're not going to resolve this between the two of us, I don't think. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

If you address the points I make, we could try... Kevin McE (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

We've been discussing this issue for a while across several threads, I really don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

So you have no interest in creating a consensus agreement? Kevin McE (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I helped to draft the guideline (WP:UKCITIES#Managing ambiguity and uncertainty#City status) which summaries the current consensus on this issue, Kevin. You were involved in the same discussion. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but if you take "We should therefore refer to Lancaster as a city" as meaning "mention of Lancaster must always include reference to its status as a city", then the same must apply to the remainder of the sentence: "but Morecambe and Carnforth as towns." Given that you said three days ago that it was not your contention that this must happen, the citation is irrelevant: what is permissible is not obligatory. So that brings us back to the points I made before: is the current phrasing naturally flowing English, does it make it clear whether the settlement or the LA area is being referred to, does it clarify how many places in the county have city status? I would suggest that the answer to all three is no, therefore that it is a phrasing that should be improved upon. Kevin McE (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The answer to all three is yes, in my opinion. 'The city of [x]' is natural English, the note makes it clear that the districts hold city status, and all of the cities in Essex are listed in the lead. On the last point, you could compare Essex to Somerset, where Wells is not among the most populous settlements but is mentioned anyway because it is a city. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe that repeated "city of ..." is natural English; the footnotes will not be read by all and the fact of their existence is an admission that the text is ambiguous, and just because three places being named for other reasons are identified as cities, that does not mean that other places might have that status.

Please explain how the following conveys less information, or is semantically inferior:

" The largest settlement is Southend-on-Sea, and the county town is Chelmsford.

The county has an area of 3,670 km2 (1,420 sq mi) and a population of 1,832,751. After Southend-on-Sea (182,305), the largest settlements are the Basildon (115,955), Colchester (130,245) and Chelmsford (110,625). The south of the county is very densely populated, and the remainder, besides Colchester and Chelmsford, is rural. Essex is divided into fourteen districts; twelve are part of a two-tier non-metropolitan county also called Essex, and the Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea districts are unitary areas. Of the fourteen districts, three (Chelmsford, Colchester and Southend-on-Sea) have city status. Kevin McE (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd consider that version inferior because it's more natural to refer to settlements than districts as cities. The current consensus at WP:UKGEO is that this is acceptable provided reliable sources also do so.

As I said above, I don't think a consensus between the two of us is possible. I'm going to stop replying, but you could always ask for a WP:THIRDOPINION or open a discussion to try and change the consensus at UK Geography. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I feel no need to address anything at another page, because what that permits does not determine what is placed here. Kevin McE (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I've posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Essex: third opinion to see if anyone else wants to chip in. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to the current situation: I think we have both moved in the direction of the other, and I am happy with current phrasing. Kevin McE (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I was happy to help tidy things up a little. I still prefer the "city of..." phrasing, but it's not worth starting (continuing?) an edit war over.

Just to note, this IP edit is just a coincidence; unless I've been automatically logged out and not noticed I always edit using my username. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be two issues here: (i) whether to include references to 'city of', 'town of' for the settlements listed in the lead, and (ii) disagreement over what are the correct population figures to include in determining the order of the largest settlements.

The first is a matter of preference. Mine is leaning towards not including the titles because it detracts from what I see the information is seeking to portray — the population of the largest settlements and their relationship to the total population of the ceremonial county. Whether the settlement is a city or town is not particularly relevant. Notes have been placed in the Colchester and Chelmsford leads explaining "city". I don't think we should clutter up the lead here unnecessarily by including similar notes.

To avoid confusing readers the population figures to be used should be the same as those stated in the wikilinked articles lead and/or infobox where properly sourced (if inconsistent between the two determine which is appropriate). If out of date as Basildon appears to be, then update. Don't leave outdated figures within the wikilinked article when updating the county.Rupples (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Further thought. A compromise could be to list and wikilink the larger settlements; omit their populations and not explicitly refer to the largest. What we have at present is this article stating Southend-on-Sea is the largest settlement in Essex and a contradictory claim in the Colchester article. It's right to say Colchester is the largest settlement in the non-unitary part of Essex but it's not made clear. Whether or not population is included, it should be noted what the figures mean by specifying "by built up area", where this is the definition used. See WP:UKSTAT.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupples (talk • contribs) 20:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  First, thanks for offering an opinion, @Rupples. I've updated the Colchester and Basildon articles, so the population figures now be consistent. Listing settlements by order of population hasn't caused issues in the other county articles, so it should be fine for Essex as well.

  Using the "city of..." wording is just a way of naturally mentioning that certain settlements have city status (or are referred to as cities). Adding a note to explain that city status is held by a district isn't any more obtrusive than a reference number, and could be combined with the note you've recommended to clarify which areas are used for the population figures. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Just to respond to whether city status is relevant, in counties where a city isn't one of the largest settlements I've generally mentioned it anyway (e.g. Lancashire, Somerset, and Staffordshire). There's not any particular consensus for this, but they've each been there for a couple of months and not been reverted or otherwise challenged. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Inclusion of city in those county article leads looks fine to me. I was mindful of the discussion on including "City of ..." in the infoboxes where it was agreed not to, but that was a separate issue. My interest is more about achieving consistency in content between the county article leads and the leads of the settlements wikilinked. Rupples (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)