Talk:Peak District

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peak District is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

I am doing my Peak District homework-its quite difficult! This site is good!

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] External links

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1]? 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

Around Park

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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. [2]):

  • 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
  • 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)

[edit] 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]].

[edit] 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 [3]. 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: [4]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/a/Talk%7EPeak_District_cf16.html"