Talk:Essex

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. [1] 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.[2] 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)