Talk:Essex

message: 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)
thread_title: Page move

message: 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)
thread_title: East Anglia

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Greater London Urban Area

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 'Metropolitan Essex'

message: 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)
thread_title: Reverts

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It takes about three minutes to add an RFC... Barnabypage 14:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://www.essexclubbing.co.uk/ 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request for comment: essexclubbing.co.uk 

message: * 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)
thread_title: Outside comments

message: 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)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png

message: 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)
thread_title:  County Motto 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Weddings 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Past and present parishes in Essex

message: Proposed R.F.D of the following redirects as there is no content in the article Essex for any of the following redirects 
# Wright's Green
# Willingale
# Willow Green
# Willows Green
# Wimbish Green
Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Redirect|Redirects]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: It presumably means it is not a metropolitan county. Barnabypage (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  non-metropolitan = ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  District Numbering 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  No mention of the coastline? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No mention of xenophobia? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Essex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If anyone is interested, please look here . Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed changes to dealing with UK counties

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Parishes project 

message: 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)
replies: text: Such as?Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions

message: 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)
thread_title: Recent edits