This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
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.
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))reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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).reply
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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.
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)reply
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:
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.