Talk:Peak District

Disputed: Dambusters - Ladybower Reservoir image and caption

I've flagged the caption for this image as 'disputed'. Whilst Derwent Reservoir was the site the real dambusters used for training, I can't believe for one moment that Ladybower Reservoir (sensu stricto) was used as a set location in the Dambusters (film). The 'Ladybower Reservoir Complex', yes, but surely the upper reservoirs of Derwent and possibly even Howden seem more likely to have been used in the filming. The citation given is now a dead link, so it best that others who know the film locations might wish to weigh in and change the image and/or caption used. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

-- Right, a job for locals. (Incidentally, many here know a little Chinese, but mirabile dictu a knowledge of Latin is rare. Please use English where possible.) Bmcln1 (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This documentary about the making of the film says (about 23 minutes into the video) that filming took place at Windermere and "the Derwent Valley reservoir", adding that the latter was a good stand-in for the real dam that was bombed because it had "similar turrets either side of its dam wall" - something that Ladybower doesn't have (at least not today). But could be Howden. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

False factoid regarding visitor numbers

Second reference:

"Visitors: The Peak District National Park has 13.25 million visitors every year (STEAM, 2018) and is one of the most popular national parks in the UK. It is NOT the second-most visited national park in the world after Mount Fuji – this is an error which has been widely-repeated on the internet, but is not true." That's from the official Peak District website, item 5. They're almost certainly referring to (among others) that Lonely Planet guide factoid claiming visitor numbers at the Peak District as second only to Fuji's. I'm removing the Lonely Planet guide as self-evidently unreliable. That'll be at least the third time I've done so. Haploidavey (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Economy

Managed to track down a google-scanned copy of the Waugh, D. (2000) book reference used for the first sentence of the Economy sub-section. Same edition (3rd) and ISBN - the requested page number is 592. The reason I've not added it is my complete incompetence when it comes to templates. So someone else will have to do that. Regretfully, another reason for not adding the page number is that the same book repeats the "more visitors than anywhere else, apart from Mount Fuji" legend. And it's hard to miss, as they've placed it on the same page as the numbers of those involved in working with tourists. The compilers of textbooks make mistakes, find new mistakes and happily circulate them as fact; so do we all! This is a mild error compared so some I've come across in History... but never mind that for now. Even paid researchers do it and once it's out there, it has a life of its own. It would be so nice if a wikipeda artcle could get it right where "reliable sources" have ballsed it up.

The link to the relevant book (and hopefully, the right page) is: https://books.google.co.uk/books?lr=&id=7GH0KZZthGoC&q=Peak+Distric+Tourism#v=snippet&q=Peak%20Distric%20Tourism&f=false

One of my reasons for posting here is that I reckon this a fine article, worked on by editors committed to doing the best possible, and to ask if anyone might have access to a more recent book whose author has done their own strenuous supervision and critical research on behalf of 'A' level students everywhere, rather than relying on what came before and just twiddling with it. A more recent edition of the same work, maybe? Haploidavey (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Waugh's textbook references (and errors) are no longer in the article. Haploidavey (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Unidentified location

House in Peak District National Park

Can anyone identify where the above image was taken, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Peak District v Peak District National Park

None of the maps in this page show the boundary of the Peak District itself. All maps show the boundary of the Peak District National Park. This would lead to the conclusion that - for example - towns such as Buxton or Matlock lie outside the Peak District when in fact they lie outside the National Park but firmly within the Peak District. D2180s (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that other than in the minds of individuals, the Peak District (as opposed to the Peak District National Park) does not have, and never has had, a definite boundary so no map could possibly show it. And even an individual might differ from time to time as to where they would draw the line. Same goes for the Lake District etc cheers Geopersona (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

What Geopersona said. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

However, to partially address the concern, it would be possible to emphasise that the bounding lines or colour-wash shown on various maps indicate the PDNP as opposed to the PD per se. Worth also noting that the text of the second para of the Geography section does address the difference. Geopersona (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou. Yes, the point that the actual boundary is less well defined is valid. However, the first map clearly does show the NP rather than the Peak District and does not label itself as such. For an article on the Peak District this is misleading to a casual reader. Thanks. D2180s (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Whether two maps showing the same thing are necessary is certainly a valid question. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Bit late into this discussion but one big issue I've got about these two images which I've come to notice is that they both include a significant portion of the area fringing the west & south-west parts of the Peak District. However, they both significantly exclude fringing areas in the east & south-east that are associated with the Peak District, such as most of the Lower Derwent Valley and Chesterfield (I would understand Sheffield not being featured as while it geographically/physically fringes the Peak District, its large built up/urban area means it doesn't bear a strong association with the Peak District).

Which makes me wonder if these two images are really needed if they both exclude significant parts of the east/south-east fringing areas that are associated with the Peak District and I think the paragraphs in the Geography section already do a good enough job in describing the general extent of the Peak area? Broman178 (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I think it's true that more towns on the west side of the national park are shown than on east side. However the higher ground of the Peak District extends further beyond the national park boundary on the west side. So Macclesfield, Leek and Congleton and closer to the higher ground that Chesterfield. You can see this from this interactive map at https://en-sg.topographic-map.com/map-xbh3q/Great-Britain/?zoom=10&center=53.22412%2C-1.64795. I do also believe that visual representation of geographic information is often a very powerful, simple and quick way of conveying details compared to words. Douglal (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

For me, its not just about proximity to the National Park (because as discussed many times previously in this talk page, the Peak District isn't just the National Park alone), physical geography and proximity to high ground which makes a place associated with the Peak District but also about general perceptions and if outlying places are mentioned in sources as being part of the Peak District or just associated with it.

While I agree the ground in the east & south-east isn't as high compared to the western side, I still think an area such as the Lower Derwent Valley (at least between Matlock & Milford/Duffield), would be considered in some cases as part of the broader Peak District (it has a National Character Area titled "Derbyshire Peak Fringe and Lower Derwent" anyway and the source in the Geography section of this article does support the Lower Derwent as having the character of the Peak District despite lying outside the National Park). I would also include the Churnet Valley in that category (already mentioned in the article of course) and living near the Staffordshire Peak District, I consider the Peak District to start from there when I reach the valley while going northwards.

And Chesterfield is regarded in some sources as an eastern gateway to the Peak District, although I do think it would be misleading to count anywhere east of Chesterfield as part of/associated with the Peak District. I'm a bit unsure about Congleton, as it is some distance from the Park although I guess some people might consider areas like Biddulph Moor & Mow Cop to be outliers of the Peak District so I guess it could be valid in the image in that respect. But anyway, I think it depend what other people think about what should be done with those two images at the end of the day. Broman178 (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I have updated the graphic, adding Chesterfield and removing Congleton Douglal (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this edit to the towns map. I think it is a bit better and looks more even with Chesterfield added in place of Congleton. I can understand Congleton being mentioned in some Peak District sources (I have a Peak District guide book which does mention it) but its inclusion in the map & lack of mention in the main text could be a bit debatable due to its further away distance from the Park compared to Chesterfield.

I'm still unsure about the rivers map as it looks bigger on the western side compared to the east - and the Mersey & Bollin in particular are a bit debatable for the map in my opinion. Broman178 (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I have removed the Mersey and Bollin and I have added the River Noe which is mentioned in the text. Douglal (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

River map's definitely a bit better now thanks (still does look a bit bigger on the western side, but I think you can leave it the way it is now). Broman178 (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Bit of a late reply, but I'd say that it depends if there is enough support for a GA reassessment to happen & judging by the lack of immediate response to this, it doesn't look like the majority of people support it at the moment. And I think it would be a real shame for this article to lose its GA status, given that its maintained that for many years. However, I must admit that even with its GA status early on, I did feel this article was missing some information on some aspects e.g. the extent of the Dark & White Peak area which is now mostly covered. This is why for most of my edits especially in recent years, I've made sure they were sourced whenever possible. Broman178 (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

• @Broman178: Sorry that I didn't respond to this earlier. I interpret a lack of a response to not that many editors watchlisting the article, which is what led to uncited statements being added to the article. For GAR, the article is evaluated in its current version and interested editors can make improvements to concerns at any point in the process. Are you interested in addressing the above concerns? Z1720 (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

  No worries & thanks for your reply. I'm not a big expert when it comes to improving articles but I am considering adding some references to the citation tag spots and other significant sentences that lack sources if I get time later on. Broman178 (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  I've removed all the citation tags from this article & replaced them with relevant sources I could find (was a challenge as not all the bits with citation tags seemed to have obvious reliable sources). I could possibly add sources to other bits of the article later on (including addressing the page needed tags) if I get time. Broman178 (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Broman178: Thanks for doing this. I see that there are still uncited statements in the "Transport" section. Interested in resolving these? Z1720 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Z1720 No worries. I'll see if I can add sources to the transport section (I also think some sources in the tourism section need some addressing too) if I get time at a later date and there's one source in the article which still has a page needed tag that I'll address later as well. Although I'll be happy if someone else can also address them before I do as I really want this article to keep its GA status where possible. Broman178 (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  I've just added more sources to the Transport section and even the Tourism section and so I believe there are now references in the majority of the article and its a bit hard to decide where else to add references now (although if you or anyone else, can point out any to me, I will be very grateful for that). The only other thing I might do later on if I get time is add a bit more information with available sources on the Flora and Fauna sections, as I do think a bit more info could be added to them. Broman178 (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2026 (UTC)