Talk:Peak District/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Most of the area?

"Most of the area became the first national park in the nation." Does this mean that the borders have been changed since the national park was first set up? Or something else? --VinceBowdren 16:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Peak Dale area (including Buxton) was not included; there are also a few marginal areas which are not part of the National Park. Warofdreams talk 16:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The National Trust

I have amended the reference to the National Trust in this article. It is a registered charity and cannot see why this is not plainly stated. The phrase "non-governmental organisation" seems to be New Labour speak. In any event the source credited for the expression "non-governmental agency" does not mention the phrase at all. The National Trust Handbooks use the expression charity. 80.42.250.254 (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Non-govermental organisation" (commonly abbreviated to NGO) is a widely used and politically neutral name for charities and other, er, non-governmental organisations - nothing "New Labour" about the phrase - but your alterations are fine (except for spacing issues, which I've corrected). Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

External links

I recently launched a blog about cycle routes including some Mountain Bike routes in the Peak District. Of particular interest may be this route I rode which starts in Parsley Hay and goes along the High Peak Trail which is mentioned in the Wiki article: https://outbiking.co.uk/parsley-hay-millers-dale-peak-district/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:51B:BE00:2DD7:DB2C:69CF:B6DE (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Vince - the official tourism website for the Peak District & Derbyshire is actually [1] - it would be useful to include this under External Links if possible, as well as the site currently listed, which is our partner site, www.peakdistrict.gov.uk - this covers Authority matters other than tourism. Thanks - Web Editor, Visit Peak District & Derbyshire --86.135.252.42 14:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The list of external links is pretty long, and is worth trimming. In accordance with WP:EL, we should definitely remove all the advertising links. Given that we have a link to the official tourism site, we should remove the links to other web directories (accommodation lists etc) as well. --VinceBowdren 11:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Weird - hadn't seen your post when I edited the page! - do let me know if you think it's better. I did check all the links before pruning. - regards -- Nigel ^(Talk) 11:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That'll teach me to just start thinking and talking about changes, instead of getting on and just doing them. --VinceBowdren 11:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Weird tho as I had not looked at the talk page & was just doing a nat park trawl! (memo to self - must look at talk pages, must look at talk pages!!). All the best -- Nigel ^(Talk) 12:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I was being slow; by the time I saved my edit here you had already made your changes. --VinceBowdren 12:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User ShaggyAlonso has added links to http://www.peakdistrict- nationalpark.com and http://www.peakdistrictvideos.co.uk/ to a lot of Peak District articles today (22 March 2011). Am I right in thinking these breach WP:EL? I've added a comment to that effect to his talk page but I haven't removed any of the links. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Those are spamlinks to his own website. He's been warned before, sometimes on Anon IP's, to stop it. I've just put in a block request on him and asked for rollback of his edits. If they can't rollback we will have to revert them individually to the last good edits. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

  He's been blocked indef for spamlinking. The links are being removed by a sysop! Richard Harvey (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

May i try to add a link to my passion of wildlife photography of the peak district ? https://www.facebook.com/VillagerJim - i give away my images freely to any body/bodies that need photos for the area or wildlife :) - i hope im doing this the correct way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.61.197.29 (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking first, but the answer is probably no: any such link would probably get reverted as inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a directory of links, nor a medium for promotion (even if non-commercial). Furthermore, Facebook is not generally considered a suitably authoritative site for external links. See WP:ELNO (e.g. points 10 and 11) for advice. Your images would, however, doubtless be most welcome if you were to upload them at Wikimedia Commons. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Reorganising page

It's great that this article is finally getting the attention it deserves! I think it would be good, though, to consider how the new material is to be organised to avoid duplication of material and digressions in the history section.

• I've moved tentatively moved geography to the top, but there's some overlap with the introduction and possibly some conflict between 'some 12% of the Peak District falls within the ownership of the National Trust' (Geography) and 'Most of the area falls within the Peak District National Park' (intro). I thought the whole national park was administered by the trust?

The national park and the national trust are two entirely different things. The national trust is a private charity which can only really concern itself with the land it owns; the national park has its own statutory body which oversees planning etc for all of the land in the park, whoever the owner. --VinceBowdren 12:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I'm being stupid. Does anyone know whether the '12% of the Peak District' means the Peak District National Park or the Peak District as a whole? (Now clarified.) Or for that matter, is there a definition of the area covered by the Peak District as opposed to the Peak District National Park? Espresso Addict 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The answer to your last question is "No". Only the National Park has an official boundary - apart from that, the "Peak District" is not strictly defined and everybody is entitled to their own view (people with a house to sell may have the widest definition of all!) Chris Jones —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

• The sentences:

'Stone extraction continues, and vast quarries are still to be seen at Penistone, Stanton and elsewhere in the Peak. Recent proposals to expand quarries at Stanton have been hotly contested by ecological protesters, and others who claim that the Bronze Age remains and natural landscape of the immediate area is threatened by such expansion.'

...don't really belong under history. Perhaps we need a new section on something like 'Ecological concerns'?

Hmmm, yes. Possibly something broader than ecological concerns, taking in other issues about how ecological/conservation concerns affect the economy of the area e.g. the cases where local shops are nonviable compared to tourist tat shops. --VinceBowdren 12:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. 'Conservation issues' is perhaps a bit broader? Espresso Addict 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've started a section on 'Development of tourism' under History, as this seemed to form a separate thread in the area's history. The end of this section either needs rephrasing historically to talk about the development of climbing, long distance trails etc, or it should be moved into a different section.

• I've started a section tentatively called 'Visitor attractions' to collect information about tourist destinations, famous local products etc. This obviously has a vast potential for expansion! eg well dressing, caves, Lyme Park etc etc

Yep. I bet there are loads of attractions which have their own pages which we could usefully link to at the very least. --VinceBowdren 12:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll dig around and see if I can come up with a list of relevant pages. Espresso Addict 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There's already a long list under Derbyshire, and others under Cheshire etc which I'd have to get a map out to decide which were in the Peak. We should probably focus on the most important ones, to avoid duplicating the county articles too much? Espresso Addict 00:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• The 'Activities' section might be expanded to talk about how/where these activities are practised in the Peak. At the moment, only the link to rock climbing is Peak District specific.

Not convinced; unless there's anything particularly distinctive about hang gliding (for example) in the peak district as opposed to anywhere else, then I think the link to the general article is sufficient. --VinceBowdren 12:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the list of bullet points is a bit off-putting, so I'd prefer to incorporate the links into text somehow. However, the bullet points might not look as prominent if the climbing areas are removed, as I've suggested. Espresso Addict 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• There's a long-standing tag for merging in Peak Literary Festival, but this article currently seems far too long to include here, and I'd suggest we just link to it.

Yep, sounds fair. --VinceBowdren 12:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Re the section 'Climbing areas', now the article is so much longer I'd suggest merging this partial list with the one in the rock climbing in the Peak District article, and just mentioning the most famous crags (Stanage, the Roaches & perhaps a few others that already have their own pages) under the Activities section.

Yes. --VinceBowdren 12:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll implement this and the above in a few days if no-one argues against. Espresso Addict 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• We could also do with collecting some sources for the new material, as at the moment the whole article is unreferenced.

What do people think? Espresso Addict 23:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

vince hi - would it be possible to include our webcam page on here - its our 2nd busiest page on our site and people love to look at before they come up (or down) so wondered if we would be allowed a link on here at all, we are an 11,000 page website to do with the peak district and has been built with blood sweat and tears :)  ? many many thanks http://www.peakdistrictonline.co.uk/content.php?categoryId=2491 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.95.232 (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be no more appropriate to add your commercial website webcam links now than it was, when the links were removed previously, as per WP:EL, in September 2006. In case you have forgotten the original issue it's available to read in the Webcam Link section lower down the page. Incidentally I have deleted your duplicate question, which you placed a few minutes before the one above, from lower down the page in the subsection Category for Peak District places section. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine but two points - first the sites about walking and climbing ARE NOT financial based i created those out of passion for the peak district , and how may i ask is it ok for you to include other financial based sites such as the Roly smith link? that is more a finacial site than mine yet you allow this? im all for not spamming sites that are solely for financial reasons but i object heatedly that you include me in this as i have build over 10000 pages all about the peak district and over 90 per cent of those are there for non financial reasons - i live near tideswell and love every second of living in the peaks and feel very saddedned that you have just lumped me into ' hes doing this for money' pack. but most of all i would like answering if possible how another financial site is allowed and yet im not?? look forward to hearing from you many thanks - james —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.95.232 (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I know it may sound trivial, but editing under an IP address causes problems and lack of street cred- could you just sign on, and log on - that way we have a talk page where we can contact you- there are 10000 good reasons why we may want to! 10000 very good reasons. --ClemRutter (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Equally please bear in mind that this is an encyclopaedia that we are working on. It doesn't not matter whether the motivation for linkage is financial or not - it matters whether it offers a resource that is valuable, credible and generally we do not need external links. (& I agree with ClemRutter too) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Mineral extraction

There's scope for a whole series of links out under a 'minerals extraction' bit - eg to Wirksworth for the lead extraction bit ((a key area in the District but not the Park) and to the Ecton, Staffordshire copper mine. Bob Linuxlad 12:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Those would be useful. I've just noticed a whole long page on the Derbyshire lead mining history which might explain why there was no material on mineral extraction in this article until the recent round of edits. There's also a little about Blue John mining at Castleton under fluorite, which could probably be expanded, though I don't know whether it would merit an article of its own. We could probably also add marble to the list of extracted materials, not sure what else, will do a bit of research.

Should this material remain under history, perhaps as a subtopic, or be expanded in a separate section? Aside from the various active limestone quarries and a tiny volume of Blue John, I don't know how active these industries are currently.Espresso Addict 00:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

New section on 'Conservation issues'

I've been bold and added this section, as discussed above. I'm not sure the title is quite right; do amend if there's anything that seems more appropriate. From the above discussion, and off the top of my head, other things to include here (please add to list):

• local shops nonviable compared to tourist tat shops
• windfarms
• high house prices price out locals in favour of second homes/tourist use
• path erosion, esp. increased erosion through mountain bike use on footpaths
• impact of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
• watersports eg sailing restricted to 5 reservoirs, with Ladybower sailing club application turned down
• access issues: roads, carparks

Espresso Addict 04:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the "conservation" issue is a really important one to get into this kind of page. The tension are just so real. That said I can see enthusiatic editors slapping POV on bits of it (I stress I have a POV on this and it ain't "N"!). If you are looking for something this link would even allow you "citation" tho [2]? I'm sure you've found this one Wind power in the United Kingdom anyway. I'd be tempted to throw in off roaders but I guess it is all part of the recreational use/conservation polarity. The work looks good. -- Nigel ^(Talk) 12:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links! I agree that conservation is critical for the Parks articles; I'm not sure why it wasn't in the article already. NPOV is tricky -- I suspect a previous (anon) contributor who added some stuff on conservation may have been POV-pushing. I plan to leave it stubby for a few days in an attempt to get some consensus on what's important here in the talk page. (Or maybe I'm just hoping some brave soul will have a stab at writing a first draft!) Espresso Addict 13:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Activities and Culture

There's probably enough information out there to make two sections, one for outdoor activities and one for cultural stuff. Important as the outdoor stuff is, it would be a bit POV to let everything else get swamped. --VinceBowdren 12:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Tend to agree. To me all these National Prks ones could almost do with portals - the subject matter involved is very diverse from pre history to modern use, industry, culture and flora/fauna. My 2d! --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it a bit amazing that this article has been so thin for so long -- I suspect it's the US bias showing. Espresso Addict 12:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree that there should be two sections for outdoor pursuits and 'culture'. I've just added a few sights to the tourist washing list, but there's miles to go... Espresso Addict

Only caution here would be spam - the word "tourism" seems to be one of the biggest magnets (other than sex of course!). It certainly should be there (tourism) but I guess a watchful eye of some fanatical erasers of spam (oops, gave it away) should be ok. Cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I also work on the HIV/AIDS pages, so I'm no stranger to spam. I wonder why the t***t word draws the blighters? Espresso Addict 13:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't realise you would get spam on pages like that - just goes to show - I've removed spam (my POV) from all kinds of pages in a relatively short space of time from golf to prostitution (via Peak District!). Whatever else Tourism is a major aspect of this and other parks and there will always be spam, POV, citation issues - still that's why we are editors isn't it. Regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 13:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS etc mostly get vandalism, but some spam links too. Espresso Addict 13:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Theatre in Buxton

Ack, three people editing at once! I'm pretty sure there's a theatre in Buxton, though it may be in the opera house complex. I'll try to clarify. Espresso Addict 12:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• The "Buxton Theatre" appears to be in the opera house. I think there may be other smaller theatres (certainly historically there have been) but I can't find them online. I've compromised on an "opera house with a theatre" wording for now, as I suspect most visitors will be more interested in theatre than opera. Espresso Addict 22:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Town list

Looking at some of the other park pages, I noticed that many have a list of towns. Do we want to include one? Espresso Addict 14:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Not convinced lists are all that great. As WP:WWIN says, "Wikipedia is not a directory". It would be better to make sure that any significant towns or other places have suitable articles themselves, and work some links into the peak district's article text. Maybe a category for places in the peak district would be a good thing though? --VinceBowdren 14:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

At work so I can't answer this <g> BUT I was planning to try something along Vince's line on the page I would like to improve (Dartmoor). There there are long boing lists of rivers, towns & tors (I know I've contributed to them). Strangely I was planning to try a couple of ideas out on you guys as soon as I had time. One was Vince's one - the other was along the lines of Cornwall's places of interest which is a form of table as far as I can see. Will try to get something later on but may be out tonight (assuming we are all GMT and should make such assumptions on wiki), maybe tomorrow otherwise. --Nigel ^(Talk) 14:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

When you get a chance take a look at Dartmoor#Rivers now (unless someone changed it) and the previous version in the history. The problem with either "list" or "categories" is that they may face deletion notices and while I am more than happy that there should be a category of "Towns & villages of Dartmoor" I wouldn't wish to bet on the views of my fellow Wikipedians. Be good to have your views - regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 18:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this content might be better served as a list or category, but I agree that it does sometimes court deletion. The list of tors should definitely be hived off into a separate article. I quite like the Cornwall places of interest table, though using small symbols like that is probably not very friendly to the partially sighted and people accessing via text readers. Espresso Addict 02:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm broadly in agreement that lists aren't very helpful, just thought I'd check given their prominence among our fellow articles. The Lake District article has some text describing the region and mentioning prominent places, but I didn't find it all that easy to comprehend, despite knowing the region relatively well.

A category for Peak District would seem to be useful, given how many counties it is split among. It'd also be nice to have places rather than towns, hills, rivers etc, for ease of bulk searching. We'd have to decide whether to include only those in the Park (easy to define, but would exclude eg Matlock which most people would associate with the area) or go with the broader Peak District, which has (as far as I'm aware) no boundary lines. Espresso Addict 00:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the geographic spread the idea of "Peak district" categories seems worth pursuing --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how to create new categories, but I'll transfer this to a list of TBDs. Espresso Addict 12:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:CG FWIW but I'll happily help if I can. Nigel ^(Talk) 12:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link -- I hadn't realised the system was so complex! I think it would be good to get consensus on what's most useful ahead of creating; I've put a few suggested category titles below. Espresso Addict 13:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK lunch is over!! I'll definitely look at these over the weekend & get back to you. The complexity (plus the fact that some editor might put them up for deletion) made me think twice! Cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 13:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete list of towns/villages

Bold items are currently mentioned; italics should probably be mentioned, in my opinion. Please add/subtract/comment!

[All the below with articles, except Sheffield, have been added to the new category Category:Towns and villages of the Peak District. Espresso Addict 13:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)]

In Park

• Bakewell
• Bamford
• Baslow
• Birchover
• Bradwell
• Castleton
• Eyam
• Hartington
• Hathersage
• Hope
• Longnor
• Monyash
• Rowsley
• Taddington
• Thorpe (=redirect page)
• Tideswell
• Tissington
• Warslow
• Wetton
• Winster
• Youlgreave

Around Park

• Ashbourne
• Buxton
• Chapel-en-le-Frith
• Cromford
• Hayfield
• Holmfirth -- cat. removed by editor; in discussion Espresso Addict 21:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Glossop
• Leek
• Macclesfield
• Matlock & Matlock Bath
• Penistone
• (Sheffield)
• Wirksworth

PS This isn't intended to support the idea of putting a list in the article, just to help us get our towns straight! Espresso Addict 00:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you get in trouble logically if you put Sheffield in - it's in no way a 'Park Town/city', and it's over the natural watershed from the Park-proper; see arguments in the Maud report circa 1970. Conversely, somewhere like Belper, (and certainly Whatstandwell) on the Derwent,and at the edge of the high ground, is PD in character. Bob aka Linuxlad 09:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't consider Sheffield as Peak District, any more than, say, Manchester. I think it's been included in this list (not by me) because the article references Sheffield several times. I'll put it into parentheses for clarity in case anyone not familiar with the area happens by. I'm not aware of anything that defines the broader Peak District; Macclesfield, Penistone and Holmfirth all lie broadly where I'd put the border. Espresso Addict 12:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The main reason Sheffield is relevant to the peak district is that the city's administrative boundary stretches right into the national park, and the western fringes of the suburbs do come very close to the national park border. Of course it would be misleading to say Sheffield is 'in' the peak district, but we can't write the article without mentioning it. --VinceBowdren 13:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Vince (I live in Sheffield). We Sheffielders would not claim that "Sheffield is in the Peak District" because that would imply that the whole of the city is in the Peak District. But SOME parts of "The City of Sheffield" (though only the greener bits!) are indisputably in the "Peak District National Park". Chris Jones - 26/Jan/07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi, I know this was a discussion which happened many years ago but I'd still like to express my views on this matter. Since I used to live in Sheffield years ago (and I still revisit it from time to time) and have also looked up its geography, I do agree it would be misleading to say the whole city is in the Peak District when the majority of the city is outside the region. However, due to some of the steep hill slopes in the city and the fact that the area from the city centre to the Peak District is within the Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe, I do consider Sheffield to be within the fringes and foothills of the Peak District (which explains its hilly landscape to me alongside the valleys within the city) even though the city is not actually part of the main Peak District area. But at the end of the day, people can have different perceptions and opinions on the matter, and what matters is the information which describes it and what references can verify it. Broman178 (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

On a side note, I think it would also be misleading to say places like Belper and Whatstandwell are directly in the Peak District because they don't lie in any of the main Peak areas (White Peak, Dark Peak and South West Peak) and are much further away from the National Park than Sheffield but you can definitely say they lie within the Peak District fringes (they certainly lie within the Derbyshire Peak Fringe). Broman178 (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Transport

Probably worth including somewhere. Major roads (including congestion issues), rail lines (including closed).

Agreed. Carparking is one of the things I was thinking of in the 'Conservation issues' section, and sparsity of local buses is one of the things residents tend to complain about. I've also got a note to research some of the history of road/rail/canals in the area, eg the redirection of the old coaching route through Winnat's and then the closure of the Mam Tor road because of subsidence might be mentioned. I have some paper resources that might assist for some of this -- will dig them out. Espresso Addict 21:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just beware of the "directory" pitfall. I was browsing Westcountry pages yesterday and even found railway timetable links included cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Margery Hill reference

Vince wrote (edit summary): "citation for margery hill ancient burials. Not a very authoritative citation, but better than nothing."

Oh, that made me giggle. A lot. That's one of mine! I was thinking of importing a higher resolution image into the article, but we're a bit overloaded with photos at the moment. Perhaps it could be dumped in an image gallery for now, as the text is currently expanding rapidly. I'll have a peek if the original photo allows me to read off the text of the notice, in which case we might be able to cite the notice directly.

I dropped a note a day or so back, btw, at the user page of the person who added that material to ask him/her to provide sources. Espresso Addict 21:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The relevant parts of the notice read:

"This area has been listed as a Scheduled Ancient Monument by English heritage, because of its recently identified importance as a Bronze Age burial mound. Dating of the peat covering has indicated a consistent age of around 3500 years through the depth of the mound, indicating a built structure, as opposed to a natural formation.

With the agreement of all parties concerned, the National Trust has erected this temporary fence to minimise further erosion, while a preservation and restoration strategy is developed."

(High Peak Estate, National Trust)

I can't find anything online re the Scheduled Ancient Monument listing atm, but it might be listed under a different name. Espresso Addict 22:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for accusing you of being unauthoritative, but you know what I mean. If I had been able to make out the text on the sign from the online photo I would have happily cited that as the reference, so I'm glad you turned out to have the original to read it from. And as for English Heritage - yes, their names can be idiosyncratic. Ladies Spring Wood, despite being named as such on the OS map and on the ground, was made an SSSI under the name Totley Wood; caused a bit of confusion until we worked out what they were on about. And it seems from the English Heritage website that getting a citation out of them for a particular listing is going to be difficult. --VinceBowdren 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries! A lot of the Geograph legend material is at best urban legend, at worst hogwash, and I'm sure my pix are no different. English Heritage do appear to be particularly difficult to search; I've found a lot of Cheshire EH citations online, but I think it's been put up by the Cheshire County Council. Espresso Addict 23:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now put a higher-res version of the photo up under a new stub for Margery Hill, referencing the notice. As the notice says Bronze Age, the Neolithic site in this article may be elsewhere? Espresso Addict 01:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thought this page was really good - nice one --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a great side effect of the Peak District page being active that many of the pages referenced are being created or improved. Espresso Addict 12:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Re the closed railway lines

My personal preference would be to keep the transport section short and current (and possibly fused with the economy section, at least till that's less stubby), and to give an overview of the history of transport in the area (roads, railways, canals) somewhere in the History section. Comments? Espresso Addict 15:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right. I realised as I was writing it that it was ending up longer than the rest of the transport section put together, which can't be right.--VinceBowdren 15:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I fear it might confuse someone who just wants travel guide type info. Most of the similar pages I've viewed seem to bundle all the history together in one section, and have the remainder of the article discussing the current situation. We might also perhaps just go ahead and tabulate all the various 'railway trails' somewhere (possibly in a linked 'list' article), as they seem to keep coming up, and they are very popular with tourists. Espresso Addict 16:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Re visitor attractions

I think we have to be very careful to balance the length and tone of this section with the rest of the article. It could easily get enormous and 'crufty'. I think it'd be best just to link to relevant wiki articles with a very brief overview. Comments? Espresso Addict 15:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your concern. One possibility might be to have a series of paragraphs covering each small area (inspiration: Lake_district#Geography), and discuss visitor attractions in each area separately. Doesn't really prevent the problem of everybody adding in a mention of their favourite attraction, but stops the section becoming one long messy paragraph-cum-list as a result. --VinceBowdren 16:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

At the moment we've adopted the opposite, themed, approach, but I think both ways of organising have merit. I wouldn't be against ditching the 'Visitor attractions' section altogether, in favour of a geographically focused introduction to each area, including the major tourist sights (though I think the Lakes version is a little hard to understand). I do think it would be less open to the pick-your-fave sight because it would involve some geographical understanding. Espresso Addict 16:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

On reconsideration, I don't think the current version reads too badly, though some bits feel disjointed. On further consideration I do wonder whether the info there on man-made sights would be better served in geographical sections; it might feel even more disjointed? I do think that a section on the geographies of the microareas could be of value. Espresso Addict 18:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is too bad at all - the idea of overall tourist interest may be better that distracting from real cover of microareas.

Can I add that I just wish you guys were in my area and we could treat some of my local pages to the same high level review as you are doing. Regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It's nice when the talk pages work the way they're meant to :) Espresso Addict 13:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Category for Peak District places

There seems to be broad agreement above that creating some form of category system for Peak District places would be useful. Mountains and hills of the Peak District already exists and also includes some of the edges. I'm not hugely familiar with the category system, but I propose adding something along the lines of:

• Towns and villages of the Peak District
• Reservoirs of the Peak District -- I don't think there's a precedent for this, but I believe there are over 50 and several already have articles
• Rivers and valleys of the Peak District -- as many of the river articles currently cover valleys
• Visitor attractions of the Peak District -- as a catch all for historic houses, museums, show caves &c

The only thing that seems to be left out are those moors that don't also count as hills; I'm not sure where they should go, as a category for moorlands seems overkill given that the majority will be local high points.

Please comment! Espresso Addict 12:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. If we create a category of 'Places in the Peak District' then all the others can be made subcategories of this one, and we can use it to round up any other places (e.g. moors such as Holme Moss) which have articles but don't fit into any of the subcategories. It should then become obvious if we need another subcategory for moors of the peak district, or if there aren't enough articles to justify it. --VinceBowdren 13:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of the parent category, but for consistency with the existing one ('Mountains and hills of the Peak District') we should probably go consistently for 'of the' rather than 'in the', though it does sound a bit odd? Espresso Addict 14:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it doesn't sound too odd. Let's do it. --VinceBowdren 14:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Towns & villages looks like a no brainer. Rivers - the only real discussion I had with someone on Dartmoor made me realise what different views there can be. I wanted "rivers" to include what happened in the valleys - he argued it was just about the river! Visitor attractions looks good too. FWIW I created List of Dartmoor tors and hills to try and achieve some readability on the main Dartmoor page - may be worth you guys looking. If you have other bright ideas let me know - I'll be around (no one to talk to in my neck of the woods!). Cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 15:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making these, Vince! Espresso Addict 11:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Reservoirs

Well, I've created the category and added the Upper Derwent Valley and Longdendale Chain reservoirs into it, but there are a load more kicking around which aren't mentioned at all. Here's a list of all the other reservoirs on the OL1 and OL24 OS maps, with some names derived from the maps and some from elsewhere (e.g. [3]):

• Ingbirchworth Reservoir (not in national park)
• Royd Moor Reservoir (not in national park)
• Scout Dike Reservoir (not in national park)
• Midhope Reservoir (not in national park)
• Underbank Reservoir (not in national park)
• Broomhead Reservoir
• More Hall Reservoir (not in national park)
• Wharncliffe Reservoir (not in national park)
• Agden Reservoir - article already existed, category added
• Dale Dike Reservoir (aka Dale Dyke) - article created 2006-09-05
• Strines Reservoir
• Damflask Reservoir - article already existed, category added.
• Rivelin Upper Reservoir
• Rivelin Lower Reservoir
• Redmires Upper Reservoir
• Redmires Middle Reservoir
• Redmires Lower Reservoir
• Bilberry Reservoir (not in national park)
• Digley Reservoir (not in national park)
• Brownhill Reservoir (not in national park)
• Ramsden Reservoir (not in national park)
• Riding Wood Reservoir (not in national park)
• Broadstone Reservoir (not in national park)
• Holmestyles Reservoir (not in national park)
• un-named reservoir by 'Strines Moor' (SE151058 above Holmfirth, not the Strines listed above.)
• Yateholme Reservoir
• Snailsden Reservoir
• Winscar Reservoir - mentioned in Dunford Bridge
• Harden Reservoir
• Upper Windleden Reservoir
• Lower Windleden Reservoir
• Langsett Reservoir
• Butterly Reservoir
• Blakeley Reservoir
• Wessenden Reservoir
• Wessenden Head Reservoir
• Swineshaw Reservoir
• Upper Swineshaw Reservoir
• Hurst Reservoir
• unnamed reservoir by Mossy Lea Farm , Glossop. SK058946
• Kinder Reservoir - mentioned in Hayfield [and wider coverage at River Kinder]
• Castleshaw Reservoirs (not in national park)
• Redbrook Reservoir
• Swellands Reservoir
• Black Moss Reservoir
• Diggle Reservoir
• Greenfield Reservoir
• Yeoman Hey Reservoir
• Dovestones Reservoir - article already existed, category added
• Chew Reservoir - article already existed, category added
• unnamed reservoir by Buckton Vale Quarry, nr Mossley SD998012 (not in national park)
• Walkerwood Reservoir (not in national park)
• Brushes Reservoir (not in national park)
• Newton Reservoir (not in national park)
• Godley Reservoir (not in national park)
• unnamed reservoirs in Dinting Vale, SK018946 (not in national park)
• sundry unnamed reservoirs in and around Higher Dinting, e.g. SK031947 (none in national park)
• Birch Vale Reservoir (not in national park)
• Horst Coppice Reservoir (not in national park)
• Bollinhurst Reservoir (not in national park)
• Toddbrook Reservoir (not in national park)
• Barbrook Reservoir
• Linacre Reservoirs (x3) (not in national park)
• lakes above Chatsworth, I think at least one is artificial to power the fountain
• Fanty Dam, Potter Dam plus one more even smaller unnamed, Darley Dale. (not in national park)
• unnamed lake SK201743. Not sure it's a reservoir, but it has a couple of straight sides. Ah no, turns out to be Blakedon Hollow tailings lagoon, for the local quarrying industries. --VinceBowdren 23:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Carsington Water (not in national park)
• Burbage Reservoir (above Buxton, SK038722) (not in national park)
• Stanley Moor Reservoir
• Combs Reservoir (not in national park)
• Fernilee Reservoir
• Errwood Reservoir
• Lamaload Reservoir - article created
• unnamed reservoir nr Bollington, SJ965784 (not in national park)
• Teggsnose Reservoir (not in national park)
• Bottoms Reservoir (above Langley) (not in national park)
• RidgeGate Reservoir (not in national park)
• Trentabank Reservoir
• Rudyard Reservoir (not in national park)
• Tittesworth Reservoir (not in national park)
• Stanley Pool (not in national park)
• Ogston Reservoir (not in national park)

Turns out there's quite a few. Many are really small though, so not worth an article each. I'll go through the list again and start usefully classifying them. --VinceBowdren 11:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't realised there were so many! Kudos for listing them all, that must have taken ages.

I think some of them have pages already? Some of the ones that don't may well have Geograph photos (eg Longstone Moor, poss. Holme Styes) as their coverage of the Peak is quite high. Espresso Addict 01:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

PS I'm surprised Lamaload doesn't have a page. It's a popular tourist one, and I've walked there several times, so I'll try to cobble a stub together when I get a moment. Espresso Addict 02:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Now done. Espresso Addict 11:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Update on categories

We now have the following categories set up and at least partially populated:

• Peak District
• Mountains and hills of the Peak District
• Reservoirs of the Peak District
• Rivers and valleys of the Peak District
• Towns and villages of the Peak District
• Visitor attractions of the Peak District

Should we link these (or at least the top-level page, Peak District) in the 'See also' part of the main article? Oh, and does anyone know the syntax for linking to category pages? Espresso Addict 14:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Good worth on categorisation. I don't see that there's any need to link to the category, the automatic end-of-page category links should do fine. An exception would be where the category itself is a substantial article, but ours aren't really. And Wikipedia:Categorization#Links_to_categories says that the linking syntax is: [[:Category:Peak District]].

On boundaries

There's been some discussion elsewhere regarding whether outlying settlements that don't lie within the Park should be included, particularly regarding Meltham & Holmfirth. Personally, I don't think it makes sense to exclude places that aren't in the Park (Buxton, Matlock and Ashbourne come to mind as examples that are outside the Park but clearly inside the area). I'm not aware of any definition of the Peak District beyond the Park boundary; the Outdoor Leisure 1 & 24 maps are perhaps the most authorative source, but cover areas I'd not consider to be Peak District and also exclude the Park extremities. Perhaps we need to work on some broad boundaries for this purpose? Espresso Addict 15:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a good overview map at [4]. Judging by that, I reckon we should include (in decreasing order of certainty):

• the national park
• Any of the towns which look like they've been deliberately excluded because they're a significant urban area:

• the entire Buxton-Chapel bit, from a line between Disley and Hayfield
• Matlock and Darley Dale
• Glossop
• Hayfield
• Ashbourne

• Any of the upland areas near a town, where it looks like the national park boundary was drawn so as to allow the town a bit of breathing space:

• near Leek
• near Macclesfield
• near Holmfirth
• near Sheffield
• near Stalybridge
• near Chesterfield

• the Marsden area

--VinceBowdren 16:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me; we might also include the areas immediately around Bollington, Poynton, Greenfield/Diggle and the upland areas around Stocksbridge. Also, I'm not sure whether the area around Carsington Water is often considered part of the Peak District. Warofdreams talk 17:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with all of VinceBowdren's suggestions. I wasn't sure whether you were suggesting including the towns of Leek, Macclesfield & Holmfirth, all of which I'd go for. Re Warofdreams, agree re Bollington, Stocksbridge. I wasn't sure whether you also meant the area around Langsett/Penistone, which could be included. I don't know the other areas you mention. Espresso Addict 18:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps an initial 'loose' cutoff zone of 1 mile around the outside of the park, though including the towns and places on major roads into the park, up to 2 miles away, which are normally associated with the Peak District, would suffice, this could be changed at a later date if any suitable argument. I could start to work on building up a Hi-Res aerial image of the whole park, which could include the park boundary and delineated boundaries around it at 1 and 2 miles respectively. I could then upload that to wiki commons with a small image as a link to speed up the download time? Richard Harvey 18:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The aerial image is an interesting idea. Are there free-use aerial images available to use as a starting point? Warofdreams talk 20:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree an aerial image would be a great addition, if sources were available. I'm not sure, as I mentioned, that having a cut-off based on the park boundary will work, as there are substantial areas that were left out of the park, particularly around Matlock and to the south, as the two maps referenced below show. Espresso Addict 10:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I found another overview map on the national park authority's other website: [5]. This one has an explicit indication of the area outside the national park boundary which is still considered the 'Peak District area'. --VinceBowdren 21:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Don' forget that the Peak District does not lie near Sheffield but partially in Sheffield. Concerning a map, may I have a go at it ? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 06:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A map would be excellent, if you've got the capability. The one VinceBowdren references is nice, and I'd also recommend this interactive map, from the same source, which shows the land use and geology (hover over the key on the left). Espresso Addict 10:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The area shown on the Peak District Area corresponds with the area I was intending to do the aerial images from. There are some sources for Aerial images, mostly at a hefty price. it depends on how detailed you want to go. My intention is to stitch together a considerable number of small detailed images to create a fairly large single image. These were originally sourced from the USGS and therefore PD. They are not new so will take a considerable number of hours work to digitise and put together, so don't expect anything in a matter of days. Richard Harvey 19:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of creating a simple, to-the-point, geographical map, rather than a geological one (which could be done from my blank one. I would like to create one which would be a combination of two of my creations: map of the port of Le Havre, plan of Sheffield General Cemetery and plan of Sheffield Castle. A combo of these would do nicely, unless you're looking for commercial quality... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

New input

Hi! Just jumping in with my tuppencworth, on the invitation of Espresso Addict. So my apologies if I'm not adding my edit in the right place, please feel free to move it to where it should be. I am mostly into doing images and I suppose I could say this link shows my credentials:- Some of my Wiki Commons images I supplied the images and constructed the Hi-resolution aerial images of the reservoirs on the Dunford Bridge article and the Rivington Reservoir article:- Rivington Reservoir keep right clicking to zoom in closer. I have the facility to create other aerial shots, made up from multiple images originally supplied by the USGS, which are classed as PD, due to the USGS being a US Federal department. So I mostly see myself as helping supply images you feel may improve the article, just stick a request note in the section at the top of my talk page. I was the one who removed Holmfirth and Meltham from the places category as I didn't think they would qualify for inclusion due to being outside of the parks boundaries. Though I am happy to see that they can be included! There are other local villages and hamlets in my area, which is Holmfirth, that could also be included, as they lie closer to the Park boundaries than Holmfirth does, ie Holme, from where my mother originates, Holmbridge and Marsden. So I would be keen to see a cutoff line as to how far from the park a location has to be, to not be classed as a Peak District place. I also note there is no mention in the article of the notorious Murderers, Brady and Hindley, who buried their child victims on Wessenden Moor which lies within the park boundaries. I did spot a tentative reference somewhere about 'offroading' which I think should be included as it does take place in the park but under the more correct term of 'Green laning' see:- here. Now its time for me to stop writing before my post gets too long. Richard Harvey 17:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've already tagged Holme, but any other similar villages would be suitable for inclusion. It'd be useful to get your feedback on the proposal above about the boundaries of the area to cover. Our article on off roading suggests that "green laning" is just a subcategory of off roading, rather than more correct term. Is this incorrect? Or is green laning the primary or only off roading to take place in the Peak District? Warofdreams talk 17:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added "greenlaning, a form of off-roading" as a bullet point under Activities. (The spelling is as per the off-roading article.) I think we were discussing off-roading as contributing to erosion (for the 'Conservation issues' section), but I'm not sufficiently familiar with it to know whether it's a problem, while mountain biking certainly is. Espresso Addict 18:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in, Richard! I don't think a constant distance from the park boundary is the best way to go, as some areas (especially in the south round Matlock) of the traditional Peak were excluded when the park boundaries were fixed. Thanks for the comments on other things to include; I've put a brief note on green laning (see note above) but do add/amend as it's not an activity I know much about. The Moors Murderers is a good point. It probably should go under history, I suppose, though that section's a bit all over the place at the moment, and there isn't a great place to put it. Will have a think. Espresso Addict 18:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Just as as an afterthought:- There is a mountain of images that could crop up, trying to decide which goes on the page could be a logistical nightmare and a source of constant change. perhaps the inclusion of a gallery on a subpage or this one in commons would keep things under control Commons Category:Peak_District. It would initially require a fair bit of hunting through other commons categories to tag all the related images, but I think worth it in the end. Richard Harvey 18:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We haven't had a lot of changes in the images on the page, so far; I've added a few from Geograph and my personal stock, as the article's expanded. I don't know that hunting out other images on Commons would be worth it, at the moment, as there's heavy Geograph coverage, and all their images are usable. It's probably worth transferring images that are added to the Commons, though. Espresso Addict 10:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify offroading: Greenlaning is the term used to describe the driving of motor vehicles, not necessarily 4x4s on public rights of way that are suitable for vehicular access, see this website for an example:- greenlaning website. Some routes are only suited to walkers, horseriders or 2 wheel trail bikes. Offroading is more commonly used to describe the driving of 4x4s on private property, usually belonging to Farmers and large landowners, for which a fee is paid for access. These could be either moorland or heathland tracks or specially constructed routes inside disused slate and gravel quarries that a normal car could not negotiate, nor some 4x4s either! Richard Harvey 18:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I've removed the reference to offroading. It sounds like greenlaning might be better served with a separate article to offroading. Espresso Addict 10:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The comment above but one is not quite neutral : "legitimate" Greenlaning may involve driving on ways which legally allow it, and some greenlaners (not, I am sure, the contributor above) are careless of whether the route is legal or not - but whether all legal rights of way (or driveable non-legal ones) are "suitable" for motor vehicles is a moot point ! (Chris Jones - not logged in)

Webcam link

The new webcam link added appears to be at the same commercial site as I've just reverted -- interested in opinion as to whether or not it's useful, or just a back-door way to promote a commercial site? Espresso Addict 06:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The webcam you took off the article was not really a webcam in the truest sense of the word. It was composed of still images in a jpg format that update every 60 seconds or so, as opposed to a continuous moving image. It was also part of a commercial website. There are many such sites showing images in this format in the Peak District. To allow one would mean allowing them all. Wiki does not allow commercial advertising links, So I do not think it was of much use to the article and best left off. Richard Harvey 12:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I agree it's best to be conservative. I've put a warning in the external links section suggesting that links should be discussed here before adding, which should hopefully cut down the problem with new links in future. Espresso Addict 10:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

i have had happily on the links section to peak district page a part of my site which runs a webcam www.peakdistrictwebcam.co.uk , its been on for months and is i think very relavent for people - at the time of writing its raining badly and a lot of people need and want to know this sort of news as 100 yards away from the camera position is one of busiest climbing areas in the peak district Froggat Edge - it was heartbreaking to see you removed this and would love to know why? yes my site takes money for accommodation owners but it IS NOT commercial !! i built this out of passion for the area and have built nearly 4 thousand pages !!!!! only 50 or so are for local accommodation owners etc etc so i strongly get upset when you class me as commercial !! the site is for the local people more than visitors so would beg you reconsider my link :(

many thanks for listening and i pray you relook over site for me take care - james dobson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.133.95.21 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 2 Oct 2006 (UTC)

With all respect to you it looks like two editors above consider the link inappropriate to Wiki. I agree with them. WP:EL would seem to agree with us as well. --Nigel ^(Talk) 07:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

James, please note that no disrespect is intended with the removal of the camlink, nor a claim that the site itself is commercial. Your link involves going to a website that contains advertising links to commercial businesses. Under Wikipedi guidelines any links to commerce, or commercial related advertising, are not allowed. Please also note the following item in Wikipedia Guidlines for external links, under Links normally to be avoided:- 3. A website that you own or maintain..... This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. That criteria, in itself, would tend to rule out the inclusion of your link. A non commercial webcam link would be something similar to this one here the one in Derbyshire thats maintained by the BBC. However; even that is not really suitable with only a 5 minute refresh of images. Richard Harvey 08:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

have read all your comments below and respect them totally . thank you anyway and rules are rules . my site is commercial if you count making the meakest of funds to help run itself , but i must stress again that my site was built out of passion for where i live , not revenue stream , i run my own software company as a real day job www.global7.co.uk . but thanks again for all your commenst and i totally see all your points. all the best for running this fab section. User:82.133.95.21

Friends of the peak district

I think the link might be acceptable in the external links section - it does seem to be a genuine charity, even though it does have a commercial sponsor. --VinceBowdren 11:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If you note the section above, about the webcam link, you will see that it relates to the same website. The link removed was simply another attempt to place the same website link into the article in a different place, it has already been removed several times from the External link section. WP:EL indicates the link would not be permitted. 82.30.72.134 14:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi - I've been categorising some pictures in Commons. I know this has been a fairly active page and I wondered if folk here would be interested in these pictures commons:Category:Peak_District - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Having uploaded and categorised several of those images to commons myself I had been contemplating putting some into the article for a while, however the article is rather large already and well populated with suitable images. I have therefore inserted a link to the Peak District Category, as a gallery to be viewed under the ==See also== section, which I feel is more suitable. Richard Harvey 16:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Now why didn't I think of that!! At least the resource is being used, regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment?

Popping back here after a long wikibreak, the article looks in great shape, and I was wondering if there's any interest in trying to get it assessed, with a view towards improving it towards GA standard? I know it can be a long & frustrating process, but hopefully it should help in moving the article onwards. Espresso Addict 02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Crichton Porteous and development of tourism

An unreferenced note has recently been added about the works of Crichton Porteous as popularising the Peak District for tourism. I must admit I've never heard of his works, but this might well be simple ignorance! I have added a note on the recent Austen adaptations which I feel are likely to have had a more significant effect, but this also requires proper referencing. In the absence of firm evidence that Porteous' works have contributed to tourism, I'd prefer to remove the note from this section. We could perhaps start a new section on cultural depictions of the Peak to collect this sort of information? Thoughts, anyone? Espresso Addict 12:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is, of course, going to be near impossible to quantify how the works of any author have affected tourism in an area to some degree or other. One can easily think of novels about various other parts of the county which surely have had the same effect, but how to quantify it? Maybe it would be better to simply have a heading along the lines of "Literature associated with the Peak District". By the way, Crichton Porteous isn't my cup of tea either, but he wrote some 30 different titles based around the area, and in my mind the link is a valid one. Hogyn Lleol 16:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's near impossible to decide how much a given work influences visits, and certainly it isn't a question that's covered by the Park Authority's visitor surveys! We'd probably be better with a separate section stating facts about literary and other depictions, to let readers draw their own conclusions. I'd prefer to name the new section something more general than "Literature", as I think the recent television and film versions of Pride & Prejudice are almost certainly more widely known than the original, and while the Peak doesn't seem to approach the varied associations of the Lakes, there may well be other Peak-related television, film, art and possibly even music that could be included. Looking round the other British National Park articles for a suitable title, the Lakes has "Literature and arts", Dartmoor has "Myths and literature", Exmoor has "Exmoor in literature", Yorkshire Dales puts it in "Miscellaneous", The Broads in "See also", and other articles don't seem to cover anything similar. How about "Literature and arts" ? Espresso Addict 18:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur with all your points. Don't like "Miscellaneous" (Wiki reasons) and it deserves better than "See also". Would certainly be happy with something like "The Peak District in Literature and Arts" to include all types of media. Hogyn Lleol 18:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This Peak site [6] might be an interesting starting point. Hogyn Lleol 19:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to cobble something together for others to edit. Thanks for the link; I'm not sure it's the most authorative (its material on Austen, the only one I know much about, seems a little inaccurate), but it's a great start. Espresso Addict 22:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently working to draft this section; other useful links: [7][8][9] Espresso Addict 01:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice work, Espresso Addict. Hogyn Lleol 07:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Peak District in literature and arts

I've drafted a new section to cover depictions of the Peak in literature & arts, per discussion above. At the moment it's heavily slanted towards literature, and information on visual art, music etc would be a great addition if anyone can find material from reliable sources. Espresso Addict 17:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a note on Brian Edwards? I don't believe he has a website but Google gave me this [10]. We should be able to quote a few books by him on the subject. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 07:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

2nd most visited park in the world?

An editor has added "it is also the second most vistied park in the world", without a reference. This has been in the article before, more than once, but no-one has ever managed to come up with a reliable reference. I've therefore removed the statement for now. If a reference can be found it would be extremely useful information, but in the absence of one I don't think it belongs here. Espresso Addict 18:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Have added a couple of references for this claim.Cnbrb (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this statement in its entirety, as it has been shown to be totally incorrect. The PDNPA is soon to release updated tourism figures that will clarify the situation, and in the meantime, it would be best not to propagate the myth any further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.75.1 (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This claim has been disclaimed by the local authority [11]Hackbinary (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This Article COULD BE A GA, A or even FA Article! Please discuss...

(edit conflict) Yes! Under WikiProject Derbyshire, this article could become a GA, A or even an FA Article! Please discuss below... Bluegoblin7 18:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, a group of us have been working on it on and off for over a year, without getting it beyond start class, so, sadly, I think significant work remains. I don't have time to join WP Derbyshire (already over-committed with my current projects), but some detailed review comments from the project for progressing to B-class would be useful. Espresso Addict 18:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Well, I definitely think it is ready for B, and have rated it as this now. My reasons being: It is a large article, with LOTS of references; It is not to specialised, and not to wishy-washy; it covers a broad range of the Peak District; and it is also well thought through. Perhaps in a few months it can make this move, unless someone else thinks otherwise...

I have also started a discussion on the WP:Derbys talk page, so feel free to watch that!

Bluegoblin7 18:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Bluegoblin. I think there's still a long way to go before a GA attempt would be helpful -- a lot of the material either isn't referenced or isn't referenced to particularly strong sources. (A lot of the current references are from the section I recently added on literature/arts.) Off the top of my head, other outstanding issues include:

• Geographical map & geological map or diagram
• Geography, geology, ecology, climate & economy sections could all do with some expansion
• Demographics & climate are needed
• History should mention textile mills
• Transport:Road networks should mention parking problems
• Conservation issues needs more work
• Literature/arts section needs more on arts
• More varied photos useful

Espresso Addict 19:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose they would all make it better! But it is still a B all the same. Come on! We can make this an FA! (I will out a message on the project - and i might also nomiante it for collabration of the month!) Bluegoblin7 20:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I support Bluegoblin7's reassessment to a 'B', the article is clearly there now. To go beyond that, a more formal review process is normal. Per Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment) "once an article reaches the A-Class, it is considered complete". Espresso Addict has provided an excellent list above of the work which needs to be done before a GA attempt is made. If Wikiproject Derbyshire can give the article some prominence, then perhaps a few others will join in the good work being done. Xn4 03:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that, on balance, I'd probably have gone with B-class, though I'd be interested to know what in particular DDStretch, whose opinion I respect greatly, was worried about. (The equivalent article on the Lake District is B-class, despite rather sparse referencing.) A collaboration, whether formal or informal, would be excellent for bumping it up to the next level, but I believe it would be very important to agree up front where improvement and expansion was required. As Bluegoblin points out in the re-assessment, the balance of material is very important, as such a general article could potentially be infinitely long! Cheers, Espresso Addict 08:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that this page has been dormant for some time, and reading it I see comments about sections that need improving, and it seems that areas I have been working on may be useful be exploited. I have added a few images along Longdendale, Glossopdale and Kinder to commons, and added text to Glossop and River Etherow and generally poked my nose into related topics- so get out the paste brush and scissors. -ClemRutter (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have begun to work on this article once more, and once I have completed one of Espresso Addict's bullet points I will strike it. Schumi555 13:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a few more photos on the way that may be useful. --ClemRutter (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The section on geology needs a thorough overhaul - I have corrected some of the worst factual inaccuracies concerning its glaciation but a great deal else needs to be done - I may get around to it myself - but in the meantime . . . . Geopersona (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have now made further changes to style and content of geology section but more remains to be done.Geopersona (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made a further deletion to the geology section re the presence of fissures in the limestone where the existing text was clearly written by someone well-meaning but with little understanding of geological processes. The story of the mineralisation of the area needs to be told coherently by someone knowledgeable on the subject at some point.

Geopersona (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions

I dont personally want to interefere with an article so complete, but possibly a note about the past trade in millstones (I believe discards can be found in many places) and the significance of the Park's embem shown in the info box.

Also the one remaining railway line the Hope Valley Line deserves a mention? 81.132.115.51 (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Started review. Polargeo (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The article obviously contains a lot of good information/images. However, it is more than a small bit away from GA as it stands. I don't want to complete a review and fail the article straight away as I would like to give at least some chance to improve this. The biggest problem is a lack of inline citations for many points where they are needed. This is throughout much of the article. I started tagging some bits to highlight this but gave up after the first few tags as there are many more needed. Also I feel the geology section will need more information as the peak district is famous for its geology. Caving and rock climbing are a bit under-represented, although I see that there is a link to rock climbing in the Peak District this also isn't a good coverage though. Importantly, where is all of the history of mining and quarrying? There is a huge history of this. There is a tendancy to just think it is a modern issue of spoiling the landscape, and the history is all about other things. Quarrying in the peak district was a major part of the British economy (My great grandfather and great great grandfather worked in those quarries), some of the towns were built on this industry. Of course if this was just an article on the national park this information wouldn't be needed as much. Polargeo (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In light of the comment above, it appears that it is soul searching time. So can I add a few points which may or may not be relevant. This is a top level article so one wouldn't expect more than a précis of each topic. I have concerns about Textiles, and Mills in general. Mining yes, and the significance of the Longdenden chain. The purpose of all the reservoirs- ie to drive the mills and as headers for canals. Coal. Alderley edge? Canals themselves. In fact nothing on rivers. The economics of early industrial life. The Cotton famine. Child labour and Litton Mill Scandal. Illustrations being judged by quality of image rather than notability of content. The references though given are not from notable sources, too vague lacking page numbers. There appears to be no mention of High Peak Borough Council in any of the references. Sorry if this sounds like a long whinge- but we do need to get this into the open. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with much of this but I will add

1. It wouldn't fail GA on images. Although I do broadly agree with ClemRutter on this
2. Most of the sources used are notable but I have a particular concern about over relying on the internet movie database, I had already tagged one of these but we must be able to get better than that. Yes there are several other web cites, particularly toward the end of the reference list where the sources could be improved but these sources are not terrible and GA criteria states that reliable sources are required 'for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons' most of the sources don't really need to be much better than what they are. If ClemRutter could point out any particular inline citations that are inadequate to back up the statements then this would be helpful. I will go through them in detail but as I said above many more citations were needed when I last looked at this.
3. As to the specific sections, I don't think we need to mention the child labour for GA but it may be something to add in future. ClemRutter backs up and expands my request for more on the industrial history and I hadn't thought of it before but I agree purpose of reserviors Canals/Rivers should be at least mentioned. All this together will probably need at least two more sections from the current state, but that is up to whoever does the edits to decide how to incorporate it.

I don't think all this is impossible as the article is most of the way there. I have dwelt on the negatives. Positives include the article is nicely formatted and well written. However, editors should perhaps ask themselves if they think they can do all this in the next few days. Polargeo (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input here guys. I have delt with the inline citations which Polargeo originally brought up, and expanded the geology section. I think they were the smaller things to deal with. The history of mining and quarrying, plus info on canals and rivers are going to take a little longer I feel, unless we can encourage more editors to help. I will place a notice on WT:Derbys, maybe the possibility of another GA will get some help :) Is there a specified limit the nomination can be placed on hold for while the improvements are made? Thanks again, Schumi555 13:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

My preference would be to have it on hold for another 5 days, I would do the final review on 30th or within a day or two of that (1 week+ from start of review). If you think this is unrealistic it may be better to take the time pressure off and edit the article at leisure, make it a really good standard and renominate after the points have been addressed. I will try to look in and help out if I have time. Polargeo (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added text to rivers, reservoirs, rewritten mills mentioned canals. I have my link to Child Labour- now will some one please copyedit my mods as I cannot see my own spellling mistakes which will be many.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Some good additions. I will do a bit of a copy ed when I do a final review (but don't rely on me my spelling is terrible), it is coming along well. Polargeo (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree, thanks for all the input guys :) I've copy edited the additions from the past couple of days, and made sure the layout matches what was already there. Feel free to make corrections if I have done anything wrong. Thanks, Schumi555 22:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That leaves- mining and quarrying from a commercial POV and then rockclimbing and potholing (both of which can be built up from existing Wiki articles). What do you feel about inline linking to Sub categories of Peak District? Is the technique too wacky?--ClemRutter (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As so much work has been done on this I think everyone needs another 2 days (including myself) to check this over and see how it stands. Polargeo (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Some initial remarks. Where is the reference for the size of population in the Geobox/Infobox? The bgs website was down (ref 34) when I checked it just now. Must do that again later. I assume all of the waterways info comes from ref no. 16. It needs an inline at the end of the info about rivers. Inline needed after the following phrase 'Coal from the eastern mines was used in lead smelting, and coal from the western mines for lime burning.' Polargeo (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Inline refs needed for Transport/History last paragraph. Polargeo (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The refs for the infobox are currently hidden because when I added them it messed up the automated conversion between metres and feet etc. Is there a way to display them correctly? Schumi555 15:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ref added to the Rivers section, and I've also moved a ref further down the paragraph in the Mining section as it mentions 'Coal from the eastern mines...' Schumi555 15:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to unhide the refs in the infobox but I am running out of time now, it has taken me 30 mins already just to attempt this. This does need addressing though so any help welcome. Polargeo (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've changed my mind on this. the refs are in there and it seems that although some articles manage to get inline refs in these places many featured articles don't have inline refs in the infobox. If it can be done then great. Polargeo (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

After the additions this article now meets GA criteria. I urge you to improve some of the references (particularly the internet movie database ones) but these do not fail the article. I also urge you to improve the use of images along the lines suggested by ClemRutter but again this is not essential. If anyone can get the inline refs to display in the infobox then that would also be good but as I mention above many FAs do not have these refs displayed. I am not a good copy editor so keep working on improving the text, however, the article reads well to me and is clear and so passes GA on this. Well done everyone. Polargeo (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Dam busters

I've found this article and was wondering if the Derwentdam is in the Peak District? If it is, it should be mentioned in the history section that the Dambusters used it to practice for their mission to Germany. I'm not sure where though as the later history appears to be mostly transport related. Also, this might be a useful alternative to using imdb (which isn't considered a reliable source as anyone can edit it); peak-experience.org.uk might not be perfect, but I think it's better than imdb. Nev1 (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nev, yes Derwent dams are right in the Peak District, and this dambusters are actually now referred to in the last section of arts and literature. Mungo Shuntbox (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

See the article titled:- Derwent Reservoir (Derbyshire). I have just wikilinked tthat article in the Peak District in literature and arts section. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Visitor numbers

I just undid this edit removing the figure of 20 million visitors, although I can't say I disagree with the edit I think it needs to be discussed. I would think that the Peak District National Park Authority are best placed to make estimates about visitor numbers, and they should perhaps be preferred over the Lonely Planet source which isn't specifically about the Peak District and is a guide book rather than a serious work. While it may be a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, I think in this case the Park Authority is probably more reliable. Would anyone object if I reinstated the IP's edit? In any case, the lead goes into more detail on the number of visitors than the main body of the article. What could be done is vaguely say "With millions of visitors every year, the Peak District is one of the most popular tourist attractions in the UK". If the Park Authority and guide book are to be given equal weight, this is a less controversial statement and is readers want more detailed figures they can look further down. Nev1 (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The Lonely Planet will have to source its information direct from the PDNPA. If they want to alter the given information for use in their publications thats up to them. However the original sourcing for this article should remain with the PDNPA and their figures used for reference! Richard Harvey (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that this official document refers to 45 million visitors to the "wider Peak District" and 18-22 million "within the National Park". Hogyn Lleol (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this statement in its entirety, as it has been shown to be totally incorrect. The PDNPA is soon to release updated tourism figures that will clarify the situation, and in the meantime, it would be best not to propagate the myth any further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.75.1 (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if anyone noticed this (it certainly slipped under my radar) but the issue has resurfaced again and the information was removed without discussion. Nev1 (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, but the tourists figures and the statement about the Peak District being the worlds second most visited National Park are very very wrong (I'm a former employee of the PDNPA who used to generate these figures). I've made changes in the past to try and move the figure down towards 10 million day visits [ http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/press/factsandfigures.htm (see this website)] as indicated by the STEAM data which all National Parks use to benchmark tourist visits. However, I've basically given up trying to correct this data as it is always changed back. Incidentally, the "fact' about the Peak District and Mount Fuji is addressed in point 5 here and almost certainly originates from a very badly written Readers Digest article from the 1970s. I'm going to try and make these edits again now, and hopefully this discussion entry should mean that they are left alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.218.213 (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A user's uncited change from 22 million to 8-ish million visitors (I forget the exact figure) happens to mesh quite well with the lowest range of various local government estimates for visitor numbers. See the IP edit and link (above)to the local government's estimate. The overestimate by the current cited source was probably never accurate; it happens to match calculations of total "visitor days" elsewhere on the peakdistrict.gov.uk site. Just guessing here, but perhaps the overestimate arose through a simple misinterpretation of "visitor days" as "visitors". Most visitors stay a few hours; but some stay for several days or more. Anyway, I'll change the estimate to fit the official figure. Haploidavey (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Location map

Peak District

I've uploaded a location map of the Peak District to Commons (shown to right). I have not created an associated {{location map}} template, but this can easily be done if desired.

If this is created, it allow enable creation a map of the Peak District similar to the one under construction at Talk:Dartmoor#Location map, and could be used in related articles (see this example). Hope people find it useful.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The location map is great :) I've added it to the infobox. I'll have a play around with the location map template, to see how it would look. Many thanks, Schumi555 20:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

Why at the bottom is there "Peaks of the Peak district" making an implicit reference that "Peak" in this context means hill when it actually comes from the Pecsaetan tribe who lived in the area?

The sub heading at the top "The Peaks" is also incorrect and should be "The Peak"

Chris— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.62.5.158 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 8 August 2011

The "See also" link is a valid link to the relevant article List of peaks of the Peak District, but that article is badly named, as already pointed out at Talk:List of peaks of the Peak District. I'll change the text of the link here and (if I get time) rename the destination article. As for "The Peaks" vs "The Peak" I don't feel strongly; although there is some support for "The Peaks" (e.g. Google), "The Peak" is commoner. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As the page move seems uncontroversial, and it needed an administrator, I've moved the page to list of hills in the Peak District. I'm also unconcerned about "The Peaks" vs "The Peak" - the former is more commonly used in everyday speech, while the latter is more common in older texts. Warofdreams talk 12:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Layout formatting

Is it possible to adjust the layout formatting of this article so that it reads OK regardless of whether or not the contents box is showing? At the moment it looks fine when the contents box is showing, but if you hide it, the image of the High Peak panorama crashes into the bottom of the infobox. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Schumi555 11:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Height of Kinder Scout

The height of Kinder Scout is given on this page as being 636 metres or 2,087 feet, figures obtained from an online source. However I am familiar with maps from pre-metric days, and on Ordnance Survey and Bartholomew maps from that era, the height is always given as 2,088 feet. Can anybody comment on the source of this discrepancy? Were the Ordnance Survey wrong? Is the online source wrong? My suspicion is that people (including the online source?) have back-converted from the metric, producing an inaccurate imperial measurement. This doesn't just apply to this article - a while back I adjusted the figure (to 2,088 ft) on the Kinder Scout article itself, as I assumed it was just the result of the convert template (I removed the template), but having a look at that article again, I see the same online source as used in this article, is also used there. Hence at the moment the imperial measurement on the Kinder Scout article is not backed by the given source. I am reluctant to adjust the figure there back to 2,087 feet, as I doubt the Ordnance Survey were wrong (my most recent OS map stating 2,088 feet is dated 1977). Are there other sources available which correlate with the Ordnance Survey? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi PCW. The OS getamap site states the elevation of Kinder as 2087.27 feet, or 636.20 metres. Perhaps what is most notable is that the feet measurement is listed first, with metres in parentheses. Maybe it has grown by a foot since the '70s?! National Trust also give 2087 feet, but a Guardian report states 2088 feet, and The Peak District Information website gives 631m! You're probably right that the discrepency results from poor conversions, but I'd tend to use 2087 and cite OS for the reasons I have given. Hope this helps! Kind regards, Schumi555 23:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've also had a further search around online, and it does seem that 2,087 feet is very much the preferred figure, which is interesting. I have 2 old OS maps of the area (dated 1962 and 1977) which were produced in the imperial era, and they both mark Kinder as 2,088 feet. So either the OS have subsequently refined their method of measurement and made it more accurate, or Kinder has shrunk (not grown!) slightly - which I imagine is actually quite possible given the erosion problems up there... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(I've also adjusted the Kinder Scout article itself.) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

_{Ooops..shrunk indeed!} Either, or a combination of both, are most likely to be the reason why. I'll keep my eyes out for any cited reasons, but I suspect the change is too minor to warrant research by anyone. Regards, Schumi555 09:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There was an unofficial survey done of the peak back in 2009, by the 'Live For The Outdoors' Magazine news team. See:- This online article. The complete survey report is available here:- Kinder Scout Survey. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Modern history - small edit ?

Quick and easy - Can the mention of the Pennine Way and the National Park be given lines of their own rather than tagged onto the end of the Kinder Tresspass paragraph? I know the two are slightly linked in terms of access history but the link isn't explicit here.

Debatable bit - I am unsure whether the description of the Kinder Trespass is quite NPOV, as some of the phrasing is actually inaccurate; the cited source is also somewhat partial, so could we think of a small reworking? It just tickled me that having on this same page we also have sections on the negative effects of tourism such as erosion and congestion. It's also sadly true that the presence of people on many British moors (with the odd dog or two) has to be controlled now during nesting season to stop the negative effects on ground nesting birds of all species

How about this rewording?

"The Kinder Trespass in 1932 was a landmark in the campaign for national parks and open access to moorland in Britain. At the time, such moors were privately owned and therefore required permission to access them except where rights of way existed. The moorland was identified with the game-keeping interests of the landed gentry; the grouse shooting season only lasted about 12 days a year albeit for the rest of the year the moors were tended to provide a suitable habitat for the game birds.[58]"

Mungo Shuntbox (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

To reword that statement you would need to have a supporting reference, especially to the claim about the Game-keeping interests. As the statement already there, which you say is innacurate, is supported by the referenced website your contradicting reference would need to be a superior one. Without such a reference the edit would probably be reverted, or at least tagged with a request for a citation, even though it was done in good faith. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice/guidance Richard - I am no wikiexpert so glad I asked before committing myself to print; I'll bear this in mind and see what I can find as a citation. My main issue is that these areas of land were private land, and weren't common land or unused except for 12 days a year which is how the current version reads. If I can take your advice once again - if the cited source actually says this, is it then acceptable to amend and use the same quoted source? Mungo Shuntbox (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You can replace the source, or amend, the location of the part of the reference from the source, that supports your claim, with no problem. However if the prior reference also supports an earlier part of the statement then put the new reference in as an additional source. In essence any claim / statement that may be disputed should have its own supporting reference. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Peak District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120122183958/http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk:80/learning-about/learning-projects/climatechangeproject to http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/learning-about/learning-projects/climatechangeproject
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090519001312/http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk:80/index/living-in.htm to http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/index/living-in.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090502225631/http://www.peakdistrict-nationalpark.info:80/studyArea/factsheets/11.html to http://www.peakdistrict-nationalpark.info/studyArea/factsheets/11.html#4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081012232222/http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/ArchRev/rev94_5/margery.htm to http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/ArchRev/rev94_5/margery.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090221190036/http://kindertrespass.com:80/index.asp?ID=36 to http://kindertrespass.com/index.asp?ID=36
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081022003355/http://www.peakdistrict-nationalpark.info:80/studyArea/factsheets/02.html to http://www.peakdistrict-nationalpark.info/studyArea/factsheets/02.html#problems
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081022003355/http://www.peakdistrict-nationalpark.info:80/studyArea/factsheets/02.html to http://www.peakdistrict-nationalpark.info/studyArea/factsheets/02.html#whoVisits
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090527163742/http://www.peakdistrict-nationalpark.info:80/studyArea/factsheets/14.html to http://www.peakdistrict-nationalpark.info/studyArea/factsheets/14.html#7
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090527163742/http://www.peakdistrict-nationalpark.info:80/studyArea/factsheets/14.html to http://www.peakdistrict-nationalpark.info/studyArea/factsheets/14.html#9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peak District. 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/20060104204530/http://www.peakdistrict-education.gov.uk/Fact%20Sheets/fz21lgd1.htm to http://www.peakdistrict-education.gov.uk/Fact%20Sheets/fz21lgd1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

File error - can it be changed?

The file of the geological cross-section of the Peak District has an error - one of the labels states "Froggart Edge", when it should be "Froggat Edge". Can this be changed? The file uploader hasn't edited since 2011. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the file can be changed although unless someone who knows how to change it can be found, I think it would be best to remove that image for now and add a different image which displays the Peaks geological cross-section without any spelling errors. I personally won't remove it as I don't want any more editing conflicts with other users in this page. Broman178 (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: Although I earlier said I wouldn't remove it, I've decided to remove the image anyway because that spelling error will confuse people anyway even though editing conflicts may happen. This way, either a different image can be added without any errors or the same image could be corrected. Broman178 (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Should places outside the National Park boundaries really be included in Peak District categories and/or Peak District page?

Hi, I know this matter has already been discussed years ago, but I would just like to know whether places outside the National Park boundaries should really be included both within the main Peak District page and these following categories for the Peak District: Category:Peak District, Category:Towns and villages of the Peak District, Category:Reservoirs of the Peak District, Category:Rivers and valleys of the Peak District, and Category:Tourist attractions of the Peak District‎. The reason why I ask this is because I added some places like Bolsover (because Bolsover Castle is listed as an attraction of the Peak District in some websites), Peak Forest Canal (since a part of the canal lies just outside the National Park boundaries at Whaley Bridge) and the Standedge Tunnels (as there is a visitor centre for the tunnels and the southern part of the tunnels do lie within the National Park) but they got reverted by another user on the basis that they do not lie within the National Park. Another reason is because there are many other places featured in the main article or those categories which do not actually lie within the National Park boundaries like Hardwick Hall (this place especially is quite far from the National Park boundaries so I don't quite understand how it can have a close association with the Peak District), Carsington Water, Tittesworth reservoir, Wirksworth, Lyme Park, Cromford Canal, Holmfirth, Marsden etc, and there are some places I have added myself on the basis that they form the broader area of the Peak District.

As I have now understood (as the user who reverted some of my edits explained to me), the problem to me with including many places outside the National Park boundaries both within the main page and these categories (even if some of them lie within the National park fringes) is that it becomes very misleading to some people who are reading the page and categories for the first time, because they then believe that some places which are far from the National Park boundaries are actually part of the Peak District even if they are not part of the Peak District or do not have any close association with it (and there are some people who believe that only places within the National Park should be counted as part of the Peak District), which to me is partially because of the misleading information in some of the Peak District websites (for example, some of these websites seem to include tourist attractions and places from Derbyshire which are not within the National Park or within close proximity to it). As a result of all this, I personally believe that the categories should have a restriction to places which are only within the National Park, or include places which are in very close proximity to the National Park (e.g. 5-10 miles), while in the main page, there should be a separation between places inside and outside the National Park. I would be very grateful if anyone can answer my query here, thank you. Broman178 (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I sympathise with your predicament. The "Peak District" is a fairly ill defined area, as opposed to the "Peak District National Park" which is clearly defined. The presence of the A6 / A515 corridor from Disley to Pomeroy complicates the matter further, including as it does several towns such as Buxton, Chinley, Chapel En Le Frith, Hayfield etc which many would consider to be in the Peak District, although they are outside of the National Park. However I am not sure that proximity alone is sufficient. At the moment I am sitting in my office in Macclesfield (it is lunchtime) less than two miles from the National Park boundary. However I would not consider Macclesfield to be in the Peak District. WhaleyTim (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Another confusion is perception, 1600km to the south is the Cevennes and I am sure it is moving. In fact the historic maps show it has moved over the centuries, and the scale of the map has an effect too. There, the limitation used to be religious, but now it is more geographical. The Cevennes merges into the Causses in the same way the Peak merges into the Pennines. Is Macc in the Peak? Was Macc in the Peak? For Categories- we must be generous, the guys who like to define things to within gnats crotchet- are not generally the average educated reader living in another region or continent. For the article, it is already a GA so we have to be precise- the dilemma needs to be included and discussed in the text- and thats above my pay grade.ClemRutter (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies, because this is an issue I think should be solved in some way soon because places outside the National Park boundary which are not in close proximity to the National Park can easily mislead some people. The Wikipedia user who reverted my edits was J3Mrs (talk) and there were two edits this user reverted which were two places just outside or slightly within the National Park boundary. One of them was the Standedge Tunnels which is a place lying partially within the National Park but it got reverted because the visitor centre is just outside the National Park even though Marsden (where the visitor centre is situated nearby) is sometimes considered to be the northern end of the broader Peak District. The other was the Peak Forest Canal as a part of that canal extends into the area which many consider to be a part of the Peak District (Whaley Bridge and close to Chapel En Le Frith) but it was reverted because it is just outside the National Park. I do understand why J3Mrs reverted my other category additions (like Bolsover) because those other places I added were far from the National Park boundaries, and to me this user is one of the people who only considers places within the National Park to be part of the Peak District and places outside the National Park to be separate.

I think other reasons why the overall broader Peak District is ill defined apart from the misleading websites and people's perceptions (its similar to the perceived boundaries for Northern England, the Midlands and Southern England e.g. with Watford Gap or whether places like Chester and Sheffield are really in the north) is the presence of National Character Areas surrounding the National Park (which contains the Dark Peak, White Peak and South West Peak) like the Derbyshire Peak Fringe, some parts of the Manchester Pennine Fringe and Yorkshire South Pennine Fringe, or even the Potteries and Churnet Valley, and county districts which lie within the National Park but extend outside it like the Staffordshire Moorlands and Derbyshire Dales. What I think could be done to solve this issue is restrict the categories to just places within the National Park (eliminate the broader area concept altogether for those categories), separate places within the National Park from places outside it within the main page, and maybe create separate pages (e.g. Peak District Tourist Attractions, Peak District reservoirs etc.) based on those categories similar to the List of hills in the Peak District page so that places outside the National Park can be included with references and in a separate section within those new pages so that people are less likely to be confused and misled. Broman178 (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Not that it really helps, but when travelling from the South, East or West I feel I am home in the Peak when I start seeing dry stone walls, so about here on the A515 for example: WhaleyTim (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.0630987,-1.7461105,3a,75y,279.92h,95.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0uWog1NiMZypaF4vFVkkvA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I have no interest in categories other than to think they should not mislead or confuse. The park has defined boundaries and I think the the category should be for places within the park boundary or where do you stop? National Character Areas describe the topography of different landscapes and the Peak District covers parts of several landscapes so I'm unsure as to their relevance here. Marsden is a tourist destination in West Yorkshire and to say it is in the Peak District is extremely misleading. Creating lots of categories to stick on the end of articles seems rather pointless when it's the articles that need improving. J3Mrs (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with J3Mrs, only use the national park for categories as that's the objective measure that really makes sense. Its not worth worrying about it more than that.

Article content is much more important. What boundary to use will depend on the article, the context of the info, and what sources say. As an example, articles about places like Tissington (inside the NP) or Glossop (outside it) should simply say they are "on the edge of the Peak District". That's simple to read, clearly correct, and avoids having to quibble about a line on a map.

As for this article itself, it should mostly be about things inside the park boundaries. However information about things outside the national park is pertinent, especially historical information. For instance, it would be absurd to totally exclude Buxton's history as a spa town from this article.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

All of this is of little matter but it is nice chatting to you guys. The problem we have is that there are two articles here, one about a land mass that has defined the history of the region of dark satanic mills, and one about the National Park which was deliberately set up to exclude those built up bits that were inhabited by 'workers'. Everyone knew in 1951 that Glossop was the centre of the peak district- and Buxton ran it a close second. Oh yes Matlock and much of the Derwent. The term has been usurped to be used by the national park- well dressing by a few quaint yokels beats childhood mortality, hunger and being an early engine of the industrial revolution. So I suggest you/we go back to the pre-political 1951 definition returning to a little nineteenth century scolarship.ClemRutter (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This link and the promotional video (it has got a U certificate) from the CPRE explains why our objectives are do different.

• UK National Parks. "History of the National Parks". National Parks UK. Retrieved 9 September 2017. ClemRutter (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

What Wikipedia covers in this article should be that concept referred as the "Peak District" in current reliable sources (ie a upland landscape, not an industrial region). The history of the region will cover the industrial past, but the Peak District is a rural area not an urban one. While that is a problem, IMO this thread is about a very different concern: What tourist attractions count as being part of the Peak District? Naturally, tourism is an area particularly prone to POV issues.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I have just separated some of the information in the main article so that it is easier for people to tell the difference between some of the places within the National Park and some places outside it. I think it is best to leave places outside the National Park which are associated with it, especially the tourist attractions, because the tourist attractions especially play a major role in the tourism industry and development of tourism within the region. Please do improve it if you think more can be done, at least what I have just done is a start. I think as long as there is a separation within places within the Park boundaries and places outside it, people are less likely to get confused while places outside the Park with little to no association with the Peak District can either not be included or be removed if they are in this article. I also think information on the Peak's National Character Areas should be included within this article, especially of the White Peak, Dark Peak and South West Peak because they form the main area of the Peak District along with the National Park. As for the categories, I agree with what has been said above: restrict them just to places within the National Park, and I do apologise for my earlier part in the misleading issue.

By the way, I have looked at two maps (one of which could be included within this article to help define the broader Peak District better) within these websites showing the Peak's National Character Areas (http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/image/0005/867074/BAP-NCAs-Mapcut.jpg and https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=658&q=peak+district+national+character+areas&oq=peak+district+national+character+areas&gs_l=img.3...705.7730.0.7859.38.38.0.0.0.0.75.1824.34.34.0....0...1.1.64.img..4.21.1153...0.wPZvsDxBPfA#imgdii=PhkwICPTwRPt-M:&imgrc=067gBQnhiiqxYM) and according to them, Whaley Bridge (one of the ends for the Peak Forest Canal) lies on the border between the Dark Peak and South West Peak which means it is one of the areas outside the National Park considered to be a part of the Peak District, while Marsden (the eastern end of the Standedge Tunnels) only narrowly lies within the border of the South Pennines and Dark Peak so Marsden can still be considered a part of the Peak District even if it isn't within the National Park (in any case the south-western part of West Yorkshire does lie within the National Park) although anywhere north of Marsden is part of the South Pennines. Broman178 (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The Peak District is not just the national park; it existed as a concept before the national park, and the park's boundary was not determined solely by the desire for the park to include it all. Buxton is definitely in the Peak District, though it was specifically excluded from the national park so that the surrounding quarries didn't face operational restrictions. Obviously places within the national park should be included, but some outside should also. This is probably one of those situations where things need deciding on a case-by-case basis. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Information about the National Character Areas should be included, as they are key aspects of the physical geography. I would not reference them when talking about human geography, like the location of towns, as that is not their purpose. The exclusion of the Buxton area from the national park, and the reasoning for it, is an important point that needs to be covered in the article (I agree with PaleCloudedWhite that area is definitely part of the Peak District). With places like Marsden, Macclesfield or Matlock, I'd forget about trying to say if they are inside the Peak District or outside the Peak District, and just say they are on the fringe of the Peak District and give them mention in this article.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I have included the information of the National Character Areas both within and outside the National Park yesterday. Now that this has been sorted and some places within and outside the National Park have been separated to some extent, I also think discussing the dilemma, perception and confusion (as suggested by ClemRutter above) associated with the Peak District's overall location and boundaries in further detail within the main article would be a good idea (either in the geography, history or a separate section), although as long as there are reliable references to it. Broman178 (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• You added far too much about National Character Areas and I have removed it. Maybe even more should go. J3Mrs (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• While I understand your reasoning behind removing that excessive information J3Mrs, I have to respectfully disagree with removing any more information about the NCA's because they, including the transitional NCA's, are very important in defining the overall Peak District better and reducing confusion to people reading the article because some people out there do view the transitional NCA's (and parts of the surrounding lowland NCA's, especially around Ashbourne) as part of the Peak District as well as the main NCA's (even though they are outside the main Peak District area), especially because the Peak District is still very ill-defined as an area, even though the Dark Peak, White Peak and South West Peak NCA's are now described in more detail. I think its best to keep it as it is now and not add further information to them. Remember as PaleCloudedWhite said above, the Peak District is not just the National Park alone. Broman178 (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• And the art of good writing is rather like painting, knowing what to add and when to stop. J3Mrs (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I'm with J3Mrs on this one. National Character Areas are a construct used by geographical specialists, most laymen are unaware of them, and I don't believe they're terribly helpful or relevant in defining the nebulous boundaries of the "wider Peak District". In a generalist and introductory article about the Peak District, NCAs are worthy of no more than a sentence or two at most (and this should perhaps be in a separate section, with its own heading). I don't believe that they're "very important" (or, to be frank, even slightly important) in defining the wider Peak District as most people understand it. The bare facts are that the National Park boundary is well defined and the more general "Peak District" is not. It's fine to explain this discrepancy, and briefly list the more important places outside the National Park boundary that are generally considered to be "in the Peak District", but I'm not convinced that there is any great "confusion" that needs to be resolved, or that NCAs are a useful tool in resolving it, or that this minor geographical nuance needs the amount of attention it's being given at the moment. Personally I'm not keen on two overlapping articles as Geopersona proposes (below), since everything in the National Park article would be relevant to the wider article but not vice versa. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• In that case I think its best to include them in a separate section explaining the dilemma and confusion associated with the Peak District's overall location and defined area. However, I'm still not sure whether they should be removed completely from this article because their landscapes still form a major part in the geography of the region. Their landscapes could remain in the geography section while the NCA terms could be described in that separate section which I and ClemRutter have both suggested. There is still a lot of information this this article of places outside the region like Ashbourne, Leek, Hardwick Hall, Alton Towers etc which is where the lowlands and transitional landscapes explain this issue and how they are linked to the Peak District. If the information was just about places within the Dark Peak, White Peak and South West Peak along with the National Park, then I would completely agree with your point that the NCAs are not quite relevant or important. Broman178 (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't consider Leek, Alton Towers or the Churnet Valley to be in the Peak District and Hardwick Hall is east of the M1 motorway just too far away. Buxton is obviously, but you are trying to include far too much. You really have to keep articles focussed, not meander into confusing additions. The Peak District is mostly the park and Buxton and the transitional areas around it are off topic. Mention the character areas but please, not in a separate section. J3Mrs (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• While I did include Alton Towers and the Churnet Valley, Hardwick Hall is a place which had been included years ago by other users (and thats partially the thing which has resulted in this whole confusion and the Peak District being ill-defined) and definitely should be removed. And I do consider the White Peak, South West Peak and Dark Peak as part of the Peak District alongside the National Park and Buxton, so excluding places outside the National Park within those NCA landscapes (e.g. Matlock or even Whaley Bridge) would be absurd. I think the transitional NCA's could just be mentioned briefy as character areas surrounding the region just like Huddersfield, Sheffield, Manchester, Derby and Stoke on Trent have been described to surround the region would make some sense without further description of them that way while towns like Leek and Ashbourne could be described to just surround the region (Alton Towers definitely does surround the region although I would understand if you would want it removed), excluding them completely just because they don't lie within the region would be silly, especially as they are both considered gateways to the Peak District (Ashbourne especially is sometimes known as the gateway to Dovedale). I think like you have done a cleanup on the geography section J3Mrs, a similar cleanup should be done on the visitor attractions. Broman178 (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Just simplified the surrounding and transitional NCAs further so that they are just brief mentions, similar to how Huddersfield, Sheffield, Manchester, Derby and Stoke on Trent have been described above the section, and make more sense so I think they could be kept that way rather than completely removed as I still think they are important to some extent. Broman178 (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• And that has again been changed by J3Mrs, although I think it was done for the right reasons (one good thing is that places far from the region like Hardwick Hall have now been removed). I just thought simplifying the transitional and lowland NCAs would solve that issue as it was earlier said (by J3Mrs and even Dave.Dunford) they were not of much importance, although I personally think the surrounding landscapes are important to some extent just like the main Peak NCAs (especially as Glossop lies within the Manchester Pennine Fringe, Ashbourne within the Derbyshire Claylands, Leek within Potteries & Churnet Valley, Wirksworth in Derbyshire Peak Fringe etc.) because they do help with the landscape explanation a bit better. Not to mention parts of them, especially the lower Derwent (between Matlock and Duffield) and Churnet (between Leek and Denstone) valleys, are sometimes considered by some to be part of the Peak District even though they are not part of the main area. As long as its not described in excessive and rambling detail, I think the surrounding NCAs should stay for now and the information issue on places within and outside the Park seems to be sorted to some extent for now (although the categories will still have to be sorted out). On the other hand, it will be important to maintain a certain separation between places within and outside the National Park. Broman178 (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I've previously engaged in conversations elsewhere that consider the merits of creating two separate articles for at least some of the British landscapes now blessed with national park status. An example from my home patch is the Brecon Beacons where casually the name is now considered to represent the entire area covered by the national park of that name whereas prior to national park designation, it was, I understand, much less likely for anyone to describe the eastern and western areas as being within 'the Brecon Beacons'. The logical conclusion is to have one article describing the national park and another describing the mountains which give their name to the park i.e. what we would now just call 'the Central Beacons. Clearly however some explanation of this is required in the article/s. Cairngorms and Cairngorms National Park also have two articles since the two geographical concepts differ significantly. A similar approach could be taken with the Peak District (also a former home patch, I would add); there are of course merits and de-merits in this approach! cheers Geopersona (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Dave.Dunford on this, because I think separate pages would only be needed if there is excessive information on the National Park. Broman178 (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi just to let you all know I have just changed the description within the main categories so that only places within the National Park and within close proximity can be added to them. I thought of restricting them so that only places within the National Park could be added as many of us agreed here but I still can't see how places like Buxton, Leek, Ashbourne, Heights of Abraham, Carsington Water etc. can be excluded even from the categories. However, if you want to restrict them to places only within the National Park you can all do that later (I have removed Hardwick Hall and Bolsover Castle and instead linked them to Tourist attractions in Derbyshire), I might be able to do a few more changes but I'm not a regular editor so I may not have time to do it all myself. If you also feel there are more places which are not in close proximity to the National Park boundary, please feel free to remove them from these categories, thank you. Broman178 (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Definitions Section Proposal

Hi everyone, after the discussion last year on the Peak District's boundaries was concluded, I am now thinking of adding a "Definitions" section in this article either before or after the "Geography" section. The reason why I propose this is because even though the Peak Districts areas (Dark Peak, White Peak and South West Peak) have been described better after the discussion last year, the Peak District is still a relatively ill-defined area (in comparision to Lake District and Yorkshire Dales which are better defined due to their larger National Parks) and definitions of the area in different websites and books do differ with the northern and southern ends of the area differing in some places, some definitions including places in the Churnet Valley e.g. Cheddleton and Alton, Lower Derwent Valley e.g. Cromford and Belper, county districts like Staffordshire Moorlands and Derbyshire Dales, and places far from the National Park like Hardwick Hall and Bolsover Castle even though they are not part of the area. So in my humble opinion, there needs to be a section in this article explaining the dilemma associated with this (which I and ClemRutter proposed last year). I have looked at the "Definitions" section in the Northern England article (another relatively ill-defined area, although better defined than the Peak District) and since that has been given featured article status (meaning that its a good example to use for a possible similar section here), I think it would be a good idea to include a Definitions section in this article as long as it does mislead too much and go too off topic since this is already a good article. I have drafted this section in my sandbox and I plan to add it to this article a bit later once I have improved it further (with references and better writing) so I would like to hear what any of you think about this before I add it in case my changes get reverted, if you have any other suggestions, please let me know otherwise I'll add it straight on once its finished, thank you. Broman178 (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I've read what you propose and don't agree that its addition would in any way improve this article. It is long-winded and confusing. All that needs to be said is that the Peak District comprises the national park but some of the fringe areas might also be considered part of it such as Buxton and Matlock. I said earlier the art of writing an encyclopedic article is knowing when to stop. You muddied the waters with National Character Areas that were only defined recently by English Nature so adding sections like the one you propose is not a good idea. J3Mrs (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC))

I agree with J3Mrs, I'm afraid. The important fact the reader needs to take away is that the Peak District National Park has a formal and well-defined boundary, but that there is also a more loosely defined and larger "greater Peak District" whose borders are vague and debatable. Going into enormous detail about the (unfamiliar) National Character Areas and fringe areas that may or may not be included is simply confusing, prone to WP:OR, and adds pointless verbiage. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is the reason why I drafted it in the first place, because I somehow had a feeling you both would say this (J3Mrs, I know we had that row last year over you reverting my edits which led to both of us barring each other from our talk pages but I'm inclined to agree with you this time, and I must admit that row has made me a better editor now than I was before even though I'm still not perfect). I think you are both right, maybe it is better to keep the article the way it is now, with just the current NCA mentions (especially the Dark Peak, White Peak and South West Peak) as they are (in any case I edited it last year so that parts of the fringes were considered part of the area) as it has been given good article status. I only gained this idea when I saw a definitions section in the Northern England article and since that has been given featured article status, I considered adding a similar section here. However, I'll see if anyone else comments on this issue before doing anything else: if others agree with you both then I will remove it from my sandbox. Broman178 (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with J3Mrs and Dave.Dunford that the text in Broman178's sandbox shouldn't be imported into the article - it's just too wordy and results in less clarity rather than more. However I don't object to the current inclusion of the NCAs, as these provide an introduction into understanding the different Peak District landscapes. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not opposed to a concise explanation of the National Character Areas within the Peak District for their own sake either, provided they're not given undue prominence. I just don't think they are useful in defining the extent of the Peak District, as a) their unfamiliarity means most readers will be left none the wiser, and b) I'm unconvinced that the boundaries of the NCAs define the Peak District, and c) invoking the NCAs suggests there actually is a definitive or generally accepted boundary to the wider Peak District, which I don't accept is the case. Dave.Dunford (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, since three of you all agree that the text in my sandbox is not necessary for the article, I'll remove it from my sandbox right now as I respect all your opinions. However, Dave.Dunford, while you say the NCAs are not very useful in defining the extent of the Peak District, I beg to differ with the Dark Peak, White Peak and South West Peak NCAs (especially the White Peak and Dark Peak as the South West Peak isn't as well known in comparision) because they are relatively well known by most people since they are not just NCAs alone and they are in most Peak District websites, books and other references so removing them from this article on the basis that they don't define the Peak District well would be one of the most absurd things to do in my opinion (something I definitely would revert if it happened) so I agree with PaleCloudedWhite on this aspect. I also think the single sentence of the outer fringe NCAs should be kept because I have stated with two references that some people do consider them to be part of the Peak District and there shouldn't be any further explanation to them. I might also add that the National Park itself also doesn't define the Peak District well because several other definitions of the landscapes do differ and as PaleCloudedWhite said last year, it is not just the National Park alone and existed as a concept before it was established. I think what could be done instead is mention in the geography (and possibly lead) with a reference that there is no presise boundary to the Peak District's extent.

Btw, don't want to go too off topic here but since you all believe its not necessary here, I'm just wondering what you all think of the Definitions section in Northern England article, especially since that is a featured article? Broman178 (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Just removed it from my sandbox now, please feel free to answer my question above this. Broman178 (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. Obviously the Dark Peak and White Peak are well-known and rightly mentioned in the article. However, there's a difference between the Dark Park and the Dark Peak NCA (and likewise for the White Peak). The Dark Peak is familiar but undefined in extent; the Dark Peak NCA is unfamiliar but well defined. My point is that there is no definitive boundary of the wider Peak District and attempting to define one (whether by reference to NCAs or any other reference point) is simply a pointless exercise. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

In reply to your query re the "Definition" section at Northern England, my response would be that a) it's more justified in that case, because there is significant, long-running debate and an important cultural dimension to what constitutes "the North of England"; and b) to observe that (apart from the formal definition presented at the top "for government and statistical purposes") the Northern England article is not trying to define a hard boundary beyond a vague summary anyway. By contrast, there is no such cultural debate or strong opinion about the exact extent of the Peak District. Trying to establish where the Peak District ends and whether, say, Leek or Belper are in or out seems to me to be trying to seek a consensus where none exists. In other words, I don't think the two cases are analogous. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies Dave and I apologise if I misunderstood you, makes much more sense to me now. Regarding the difference between the actual Dark/White/South West Peak areas and the NCAs, some of their defined maps online both for the areas and NCAs are not very different to each other so I think a balance between the two in this article would solve this problem: using the NCAs to define the area but just mentioning them as regions of the Peak District. I did establish a difference between the actual areas and NCAs last year in that paragraph in these two edits: [12] and [13] but PaleCloudedWhite and J3Mrs both copyedited and changed it to what it is now, although since this is a relatively minor issue, it would also be okay to keep it the way it is now. And I now understand why adding a definition section here is different and less useful to say in Northern England. Broman178 (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Broman. I'm not actually averse to a Definition section (or a paragraph within the "Geography" section) that addresses the difficulty/multiplicity of definitions, though it needs not to get bogged down in possible alternatives and obsessive detail. There certainly might be some value in researching and documenting (suitably referenced) why the National Park boundary was drawn where it is, and why places like Chapel-en-le-Frith and Buxton are outside it. I guess I'm saying the article needs to stick to the facts: it should "embrace the ambiguity" and, at most, try to explain it; trying to resolve the uncertainty by suggesting a supposedly accepted boundary would be original research, which we should avoid. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The NCA documents describe the topography, geology, ecology of all the different landscapes in England. They are meant to be databases for informing future decision making and as such make excellent references for sections of this article. They describe the White Peak, the Dark Peak or wherever better than anything else I have come across and should be used as reference not to create separate confusing Dark Peak or White Peak NCA sections in the article. Natural England says the NCAs don't respect boundaries and I think adding them other than as references causes unnecessary confusion.

As to "Definition" other than the park boundary I doubt there is one. The reason for setting the park boundaries appears to be (OR) to omit industrial areas. J3Mrs (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess my perception on the Peak District boundaries do differ (my opinion) but I do think the Dark Peak, White Peak and South West Peak do have relatively clear definitions even though Natural England says it does not respect boundaries because their boundaries do mostly follow the line of the National park even if they are not entirely precise (I think what it means is the boundaries are not entirely precise and are mostly areas of transition). And like I said earlier, I don't think the National Park defines the area that well either even though it contains the three main Peak Areas because it excludes the area between Whaley Bridge and Buxton (I'm aware for industrial reasons), an area which definitely is part of the Peak District, boundaries of the Peak District do differ with different sources e.g. tourist attractions, not to mention some sources and people consider outlying areas such as the Churnet Valley and lower Derwent valley to also be part of the area even though they are outside the National Park and the three main Peak areas (I'm not saying the Park boundaries are incorrect but they don't include all the areas considered as the Peak District). However, I do think the National Park, Dark Peak, White Peak and South West Peak boundaries, while not enough to define the area considered to be the Peak District, nevertheless are the best definitions/boundaries to use in this article for defining the Peak District. I think what matters the most is what the references confirm (NCA or not), and we can either keep it the way it is now or remove the NCA terms completely for both three main Peak areas and the fringes considered to be part of it. We could also give mention in this article that there is no precise boundary to the whole Peak District area as long as a reference supports it. I must admit, definitions was not the only section/paragraphs I considered adding as I'm thinking of adding some information on the animals which thrive within the area (Wildlife/Fauna) as this article doesn't have much information on that aspect. Broman178 (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a comment to say that the Geography section is in much better shape than it was. Collaboration works! Thanks all. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

When I said the NCA documents are good for referencing, I ought to have clarified that they should be used like books or journals and page numbers supplied. J3Mrs (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem Dave, at least we've all improved it the right way rather than using the unhelpful "Definitions" section I originally proposed, so many thanks to you all too. I think the only main thing which should be done about this article now is more detail for Fauna (animals) which thrive within the Peak District because there isn't much information in this article about that and I believe this is important. And thanks J3Mrs for the clarification. Broman178 (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

New "Fauna" Section

Hi everyone, just thought I'd let you all know I've just added a new section covering the Fauna (animals) of the Peak District as this is a topic which hadn't been covered by this article and it definitely is important as this section is featured in other National Park and upland/mountainous area articles. I drafted this in my sandbox before adding it so if there are any improvements which could be made for this new section (I think it might need more detail and history as it is currently written like a list), please do suggest them here, thank you. Broman178 (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I've trimmed it a bit. It seems a bit pointless to list species like fox and blackbird that are ubiquitous across the UK, and not specialists or particularly associated with the Peak District. I suspect some of the sources quoted aren't particularly written by experts. I'll see what I can find from more specialist literature, as there are certainly species that could usefully be highlighted. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, well I can say what I've done is just a starting point, obviously the section currently isn't perfect and will need improving later on to match with the "good article" status this article currently has, not to mention I'm no major expert on this area so what I add may not entirely be perfect (I did debate whether to add the domestic species in or not and I only added them because one of the references supported them). More detail on some species and maybe where they are found in the Peak District (along with a history/background to that) possibly could be added later on as its currently written like a list and I'm eager to see what you add to it later on Dave. Broman178 (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I must admit I was also wondering whether a section of "Flora" would be needed for this alongside "Fauna" although I think this may not be needed as it is already covered by the "Ecology" section. Broman178 (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Broman178:. I've just noticed that Derbyshire has quite a good "Flora" section, which could perhaps be used as the basis of a section in this article. Cheshire and Staffordshire have no such sections, sadly. I was going to start drafting a paragraph on birds of the Peak District today, though it may not appear immediately. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dave.Dunford: Thanks for letting me know, I have actually started drafting the Flora section in my sandbox and I could use some of the information from the Derbyshire article for it a bit later on, if I improve my draft (will have to reword it as most of the info is copied from internet) and expand it, I might add it to the article. Fauna section looks even better now with the bird expansion, makes the article much more informative than it was before. Broman178 (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Flora

Hi, I've just added a new section for Flora after drafting it in my sandbox as it is another section not well covered by this article. However, it is just a starting point and it may need to be improved as I doubt what I have done is perfect. If there are any improvements to be suggested, please suggest them here, thank you. Broman178 (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@J3Mrs: I disagree with your revert of my edit. Reducing the sentence to its skeleton, we now have "Two endemic plants are a bramble and Derby hawkweed is a native perennial of limestone cliffs.", which doesn't make sense. Perhaps a reword would be best: "Two vascular plants are endemic to Derbyshire (i.e. found nowhere else in the world). The first is Rubus durescens, a bramble found in central Derbyshire. The second is Derby hawkweed, Hieracium naviense, discovered by J.N. Mills in 1966 and described as a new species in 1968, a native perennial of limestone cliffs found only in Winnats Pass."

I've been bold and reworded, though I think more elegantly (and less radically) than the suggestion above. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your edits, it's much better now. I was becoming somewhat blurry-eyed after such a large amount of jumbled and duplicated information was added, that I set about it with shears rather than scissors. Thanks. J3Mrs (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for both your edits on the Flora section, Dave.Dunford and J3Mrs, I will admit its improved a long way since I added it yesterday, which I added just to start things off, it obviously wasn't perfect. My only concerns with the Flora section now is that it focuses too much on plants native to the White Peak, and very little on plants native to the Dark Peak, not to mention most of these plants are from Derbyshire and not any of the other counties, if we can add a bit more on rare plants within the Dark Peak and other counties (including some of the Peak fringes), and maybe slightly expand (in a copyedited form so that it doesn't become excessively detailed) on it like Dave.Dunford did for the Fauna, it might improve further. These are just my suggestions for improving the Flora, if any of you have better ideas, please post them here. Many thanks. Broman178 (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it is more or less enough for a sub section of an encyclopedia article. It cannot and should not mention everything, only the most important/significant. J3Mrs (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm not saying we should include every plant in the Peak District (especially ones which occur as generalists throughout the country) but maybe a few more important ones for the Dark Peak and possibly other counties could possibly be added if there are any, as the majority of rare plants in the Flora section now are from the White Peak and Derbyshire, if there aren't any more rare plants native to the Dark Peak then I am happy with the section as it is now as I do agree we can't add everything as it'll become too wordy and excessively detailed. I think some copyedits/trimming might be needed for the Fauna though, all the other sections in this article seem okay in terms of wording. I'm just happy these two sub sections are now in the article as they were not well covered before and I believe they are both important and useful for readers. Broman178 (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sprawl

A lot of information has been added to this article since it achieved GA status. The Ecology section I think has improved it but I think other parts are in need of further copyediting to keep it focussed and eliminate duplication. J3Mrs (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It also needs reorganising as it is extremely repetitive. J3Mrs (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The article looks even better with all the copyedits and reorganising. The only things of these new changes I'm not sure about are the removal of the Huddersfield Line from the public transport section because in my opinion that line serves some of the villages fringing the northern boundaries of the park such as Greenfield and Marsden (I also respectfully disagree with the edit summary statement "nobody thinks the A62 is in the peak district" because while its not entirely within the Peak District, to me that road is roughly between the Peak District and South Pennines although I do support that change as it didn't seem appropriate there) and regarding the Flora, the second paragraph to me seems more introductory than the other one (as it covers both Dark & White Peaks while the other one is solely and broadly about the White Peak) although it got changed back to what it was. Apart from these concerns, its much better now, good work J3Mrs and keep it going. Broman178 (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I travel frequently on the Huddersfield Line, and apart from you, I have come across nobody who considers it to have any connection with the Peak District, likewise the A62. Including them seems to be your own personal pov and not a general opinion. I have said before this article covers a large enough area without mentioning things on the fringes, that is why I am trying to get rid of the sprawl. I think Jacob's Ladder, Derbyshire's flower makes a good intro to Flora. J3Mrs (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I respect what you have said and I've just looked across a few websites online and the Peak District AA Guide book a copy of which I own at home and they don't (with the exception of Slow Travel the Peak District) seem to mention the Huddersfield Line (though, conversely, the PD AA Guide mentions Hardwick Hall and Bolsover Castle as part of Peak District although I'm not going to add them in as they are outside the region, and it also includes the Standedge Tunnels including the Visitor Centre) so I won't add it back (although I still consider the Huddersfield Line & A62 to be connected to the Peak District).

I think I perceive the Flora info differently too as the bottom paragraph included the Dark Peak (which is described quite scarcely in that section) too alongside the White Peak so it seemed more ideal as an intro to me, although if you prefer the paragraph with Jacob's Ladder to be there, I'll also keep it the way it is. I also agree the article should be focused, not have too much detail and not go too off-topic although I also like the see the article informative, covering the main areas of the National park and some main areas outside the Park in the fringes because the Peak District is still more than just the Park alone (even though compared to the Park, it isn't well defined and defining it completely is pointless) as it existed well before the Park was established, thats all I really would like. But thanks for your edits anyway J3Mrs, they have largely improved the article. Broman178 (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

South West Peak mention

The article has improved a lot over the past few weeks although I think mention of the South West Peak might need to be toned down or reduced later because it isn't as well known to most people in comparison to the Dark Peak and White Peak (indeed when most people talk about the Peak District, they mostly think about the White & Dark Peaks) and is more of an NCA than the other two. Not to mention some sources I have seen online, and even the Peak District AA Guide and Dark Peak article, consider the area covered by the South West Peak to be part of the Dark Peak especially as the landscape is mostly gritstone moorland like the Dark Peak but with a few pastured landscapes (stating that the Dark Peak surrounds the White Peak like a horseshoe to the north, east and west).

I also looked at the information board at the Manifold Valley (an area of the Peak District I travel very frequently) Visitor Centre at Hulme End about the surrounding area and there was no mention of the South West Peak, just the White & Dark Peaks. I know I expanded on it myself last year but that was when I put more importance in the NCAs compared to now so if I find any of these sources stating the South West Peak is part of the Dark Peak, I might change the info a bit and tone down mention of the South West Peak a bit in the article sometime later, although I won't remove it completely as it is still a significant character area of the Peak District. Broman178 (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

All done now, toned down South West Peak as much as I could and kept it in relevant places. If anyone has any better suggestions though regarding this matter, please let me know, thank you. Broman178 (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)