Talk:Essex

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 The source is extremely outdated, and singular - it is the ONLY source that uses the phrase, and has no authority to state that this is a fact (such as Government data, etc).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)

I removed this today. ABC is not a reliable source. Also the only use in VCH refers to the part of Essex that was within the Metropolitan Police District and that is substantially different to what this article claimed. MRSC (talk) 07:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Collage

@A.D.Hope i am not sure why you reverted the change I made. Firstly, the largest picture is a very poor picture of the Hythe Quay at Maldon, in fact its taken from Heybridge and you see more of the Marina there in the foreground. The IP editor had changed it to a picture of a wood, supposedly Epping Forest but could be anywhere. I amended it to Finchingfield based upon it being the most photographed village in England and regarded as one of England's prettiest . Does this not make it a prominent cultural, historic, or natural landmarks? Secondly, I changed the Canside (formerly Cater House) picture - is that really a landmark in a prominent city? Err no, it doesnt even make the Chelmsford collage!. Thats why I changed it to Colchester Castle, it could easily have been Southend Pier, Chelmsford Cathedral, Shire Hall, Chelmsford or Jumbo Water Tower. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I reverted the change because I thought it would be best to have a discussion. The current form of the collage has been stable for nearly two years, so to have all three images changed in one day by two different editors is quite a change.

There was a discussion about the infobox images in January 2024 which settled on the current set. The image of The Hythe represents the Essex coast, Cater House in Chelmsford represents the modern side of the county and the large settlements in its south, and the house in Saffon Walden the traditional craft of pargeting. Any alternative proposals will need to have a similar rationale for inclusion.

While Finchingfield is pretty, the suggested image doesn't represent the Essex landscape as well as the current image. I'd also be cautious about not including something modern in the collage, as they can easily become twee. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I recall A.D.Hope and myself having a bit of a 'barney' over one of the infobox images but all ended well and we settled on the current set, which has been stable since August 2024. Southend Pier was discussed but we couldn't find an image well suited to the infobox. My preferred choice initially was Dovercourt lighthouses. In the end, I accepted A.D Hope's point about including a more modern building, representing one of the larger towns and chose Canside because I saw the relief effect thereon as a modern form of pargeting. Quite a lot of thought and time was spent selecting the three images, but if consensus can be found for a different set, that's fine. I'm sure A.D.Hope will correct me if I'm wrong, but the objective seems to be that if a large part of the county is rural, we generally have a rural landscape as the main image or a coastline, if appropriate, accompanied by a portrait image of a structure and another image characteristic of the county, but not necessarily among the most well known. Rupples (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's the basic gist. Most counties include some sort of landscape, so we try to include that, plus at least one of the major towns or cities and something else characteristic of the county. It's not the end of the world if none of the images show something recent, but overall the collage shouldn't be too chocolate-boxey; for example, Leicestershire includes the National Space Centre, Wiltshire a view of Swindon, and Shrewsbury the modern market hall rather than an older building.

To be quite honest I'm not wedded to any of the individual images currently used for Essex, although thematically they cover most of the bases so are strong in that respect. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but Canside is regarded as an ugly block on Chelmsford and is certainly not notable. As I stated previously its not even on the Chelmsford collage! If we have a modern building there are far more prominent buildings like . Secondly, the Hythe picture doesn't represent the Essex landscape well, and in fact is a rather poor representation of its coast. In fact that is very difficult to do, as North Essex is rolling hills, central is flat while the South is built urbanised. Essex is known in the North and West for beautiful villages, which is why I put forward Finchingfield, which is the most famous of them all. I have no argument with the Sun Inn in SW as pargeting is a very unique North Essex thing. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the collage after you finished your edits, while Finchingfield is pretty and Colchester Castle is notable, there was no reference to the Essex landscape, the modern aspect of the county, or anything in the southern half. It doesn't give an accurate overview of the place, in other words.

If you'd like to suggest some images which show a modern side of Essex, whether a building or something else, and some alternative landscape images, I'm sure we'd be happy to discuss them. Bear in mind that they need to be legible at small size within the infobox, and in my experience images taken at an oblique angle such as the County Hall image above tend not to work well. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)