Talk:Upminster

Ceremonial county

The Ceremonial County should be Essex. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.6.182 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 11 June 2007.

Not according to the Lieutenancies Act 1997. Greater London is the ceremonial county for all London boroughs (but not the City). [2] MRSC • Talk 06:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I stand corrected. However Upminster is in the historic/traditional county of Essex - there are some who maintain that these traditional counties are still valid and should receive some reconition, should Essex get a mention in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.48.22 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 12 June 2007.

I've added a mention and link to Chafford (hundred) which was the ancient subdivision covering the area. MRSC • Talk 06:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Upminster IS in Essex, people please do your homework! It does not have a London address nor a London telephone dialing code! It just happens to come under the control of a London Borough, like Ilford. (82.2.175.77 (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Agreed Upminster is in Essex. Even the Havering Council town Hall is in Essex. Poitical boundaries are constantly changing. The definition of the boundaries change to keep the voting numbers even, so the political wards of Upminster and Cranham have no reference to the postal areas of Upminster and Essex.217.34.44.59 (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Addresses and dialling codes are irrelevant. Sewardstone has these but is NOT in London, why? Because it is not inside a London Borough. If an area is within a London Borough it is in London, end of, finito, goodbye Justgravy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sexiest town 2009

Does anyone want to put it in a mention. People might be interested. You can find info here: http://www.mirror.co.uk/2009/09/08/upminster-named-sexiest-town-in-britain-and-bangor-s-third-115875-21655996/ .Larnu UK 19:03, 13 September 2009 (BST)

There is a whole industry in producing this kind of 'research' for companies to use for marketing purposes and it should be treated as such. MRSC (talk) 07:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

List of members of parliament

This belongs in Upminster (UK Parliament constituency). MRSC (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Who is Who

This belongs in List of people from Havering, but see List of people from Barking and Dagenham for a list that is properly referenced. MRSC (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

From my understanding of history most of the people on the who is who list that you have removed never lived in anywhere called Havering ! Upminster and Cranham are the reference not some greater political boundary. 217.34.44.59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

List is now incorporated into List of people from Havering. I see now it was lifted from http://www.upminster.com/history/people/whoiswho.htm. Please note Wikipedia:Copyright violations. MRSC (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Upminster/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll start a readthrough now and post queries below. Feel free to revert any changes to meaning I inadvertently make. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• The section Local government is a little "and then this happened and then that happened" - any info at all on how any of these changes impacted on the growth or people of Upminster will improve the section considerably - not an issue for GA, but would be good for FAC (I try to give articles I review a shove in that direction :))

• Link or explain "parish vestry" - I'm an aussie atheist :/ Y linked

• Governance section - any notes on traditionally tory or labour leaning? Y it is unusual politically that it votes residents; added with reference

• Rather than see also at the bottom, I'd have a couple of sentences on schools and hospitals if any.

Anyway, nearly there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review. I'll deal with these points now. MRSC (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Schools and hospitals: There are no hospitals, and probably one school that is notable, but it can also lay claim to be in neighbouring Cranham. For reasons such as this we've organised schools information in articles relating to each of the 32 London boroughs, and I think I'd prefer to leave it that way. MRSC (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay - my knowledge of London is limited to West and South London, so I am not familiar with the area. This explanation satisfies me :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Local government: The narrative is a system of local government failing to keep up with the pace of change (population growth, urban expansion). This is true of much of the Greater London area, and implicit in the article. There are probably sources to be found which explicitly state this. MRSC (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Point taken - I agree that often these changes mean little to the folk at large, but was just wondering that maybe one or more of them may have actually had some real-life impact.

Okay then, graphing it out:

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

• Images need WP:ALT text.

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

Anyway - all good to go now. Well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"Very affluent"

We need to be careful saying things like this and house prices in London are high everywhere, so it doesn't tell us anything. However, the English indices of deprivation 2010 show Upminster ward as the least deprived in London and this has been added with a citation. MRSC (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Upminster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211082200/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10166913&c_id=10001043 to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10166913&c_id=10001043
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604093935/http://www.london.gov.uk/archive/mayor/planning/srdf/docs/east-srdf.pdf to http://www.london.gov.uk/archive/mayor/planning/srdf/docs/east-srdf.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219031529/http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=379 to http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=379
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091014065510/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/high-frequency-services-map.pdf to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/high-frequency-services-map.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)