Talk:Essex

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cardyak (talk | contribs) at 09:04, 29 May 2020 (→‎Population Changes: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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).[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Missing infoboxes

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Hamish Griffin (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 15:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Essex&oldid=959545861"