Talk:East Tilbury

I've amended a lot of the awful spelling and grammar mistakes and also neutralised some of the comments on the new development. Wikipedia is not a political platform. Yes, local residents are concerned about the new development. That is a fact. So I have left it in. 'The new development will spoil the neighbourhood' was deleted. That is an opinion, not a fact. If it is built, and does indeed spoil the neighbourhood, then and only then can it be included in Wikipedia, as it will be a fact and no longer an opinion. I also added one advantage of the proposed new development under 'shopping'- if new shops are built in East Tilbury, there will be less far to travel for shops, therefore less harm to the local environment from car exhausts of people constantly driving to Lakeside for shopping. There are two sides to every story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.81.47 (talk • contribs).

Removal of content
At the end of March User:Caomhin removed various items of content from this article, including a reference to Bede, information on the Bata developments and conservation area status. The edit summary made no mention of these removals. Is there some objection to this material? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think that was a mistake. I can only assume my concentration slipped whilst on a spam hunt since it looks like valid content - I guess I mistakenly edited from an old revision which led to the removal. I've just redone the edit (forgot to explain it in the edit summary though so I'm still an idiot) to put the valid content back. Caomhin (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Bata factory picture
Under the the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license, the image should be attributed to its author. I will therefore revert the removal of the author. If this is unnaceptable, then perhaps the image should be removed. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it to be placed on the Thames by category or too remote?
Dear everyone, please add thoughts below in the light of the various deletions as seen at Category_talk:Populated_Places_in_Oxfordshire_on_the_River_Thames. Thanks. - Adam37   Talk  19:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the places on the Thames in Thurrock are "remote" from the Thames. In many cases the main settlement is a short distance from the river because when the settlement was established, there were tidal salt marshes adjacent to the Thames. The Saxons who founded these settlements sailed their boats through the marshes to reach land above the tidal marshes. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East Tilbury. 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/20090210083708/http://www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/environment/content.php?page=conservation_consult to http://www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/environment/content.php?page=conservation_consult

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on East Tilbury. 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/20071001043518/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10025941 to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10025941
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930211015/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10247688&c_id=10001043 to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10247688&c_id=10001043
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930201553/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/bound_map_page.jsp?first=true&u_id=10247688&c_id=10001043 to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/bound_map_page.jsp?first=true&u_id=10247688&c_id=10001043
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061018142057/http://www.eais.net/land-for-new-homes.htm to http://www.eais.net/land-for-new-homes.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807071614/http://www.easttilburyjunior.thurrock.sch.uk/ to http://www.easttilburyjunior.thurrock.sch.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

village or town
as a resident I have always considered as is suggested in the page east Tilbury as a village but in paragraph 2 of 'developments' it is called a town 2A00:23C7:AF8D:3301:5DBE:FADE:2E96:6F2F (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)