Talk:Lake District

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is part of WikiProject Protected Areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected areas worldwide. It may include the protected area infobox.
Lake District is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

I like it, it helped me do my geog project —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.75.154 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the damn thing, it's on my site : http://www.paintingwithlight.co.uk

If that is true, you should make clear that you release it under the terms of the GNU FDL (see Wikipedia:Copyrights), since your website has the copyright sign under it. Jeronimo
There is also no mention of your authorship in the edit summary for the page. This is basic info that must be included in the edit summary -- otherwise there is no way for us to know. --mav
Please don't delete this page. It is part of a list of National Parks in National parks (England and Wales).

It would be good if it contained more factual information at the beginning, especially about its own National Park authority. User:Renata

We still need to hear back from the original poster in order to make sure he/she understands that their text will be under terms of the GFDL. I would like to have some evidence, however minor, that the poster is actually the author too. --mav

This page needs expanding: it's one of the most famous parts of England. Needs a longer list of fells; comprehensive list of lakes; more on people associated with the area (Beatrix Potter springs to mind). Also, I think the OS figure for the height of Scafell Pike is definitive, no need to mention Wainwright's figure. I'll update this page eventually if nobody else does. --Auximines 09:55, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, it definitely needs work. I went ahead and remove Wainwright's height (as far as I understand, AW normally took his heights from the contemporary OS maps anyway, so the updated OS figure is the one to use). There is a Beatrix Potter page already (but it's not yet linked). Some mention of the many tarns is also needed. The Cumbria page lists a number of lakeland topics and places not yet on this page - these two pages should probably be co-ordinated. --David Edgar 16:50, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Land of snow-clad fells

I can't help thinking that the phrase "this land of snow-clad fells" is a bit misleading for anyone outside the area. I can see the fells in question from my bedroom window, and they're not snow-clad for most of the year! :-)

[edit] Map?

This could really use a map. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:22, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)


Never mind that - it could really do with a few pictures. When I get the time, I'll get up to speed on how to use images and link a couple of those lake and fell images to here. PaulHammond 18:24, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lake District vs Lake District National Park

The identity of the Lake District existed before the national park (1911 Britannica!) but this article uses the two interchangably as though thay are the same thing. Also, there are places outside the boundary of the Park, e.g. Kendal, which by most people's definition are in the Lake District.

[edit] References

This article is a decent size (haven't yet gone through the content, other than to notice that we give the dimensions but not area of the park), but could benefit from citing more sources. Joe D (t) 06:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Very good article, but it's let down slightly by the effect of "Although everywhere else on Wikipedia we have to adopt an encyclopaedic tone, I like this place and want to wax lyrical about it so I'm going to ignore that rule here" syndrome. Shouldn't be too difficult to fix. SP-KP 18:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to get rid of the most hyperbolic sections and levelled the article out a bit. Robdurbar 09:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geography section

Do we really need the list of 20 most prominent summits? That kind of thing is really only of interest to obsessive peak baggers (yes, I count myself among those of that description :-)); the list of highest fells is surely enough. Would anyone object if I deleted this list?

I think the description of the fells could do with reformatting too; the divisions are not Wainwright's, as previously stated, but look like those used by Mark Richards in his Lakeland Fellranger series. More emphasis could also be given to the parts of the LD that aren't part of the high fells, such as the Cartmel peninsula. I'm not sure how to go about changing it though; perhaps the best thing would be to remove the section headings and have a more flowing text. Does anyone have any bright ideas? -- Blisco 22:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you know it well then I think that would be much better. The current version is my modification of a highly sycophantic text that was here abour 2 months ago, but it could probably do with a complete re-write. --Robdurbar 09:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll add it to my 'to do' list and have a look at it some time soon. -- Blisco 21:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Large tract of text was lost

Don't know what's going on but a large tract of text, plus 2 images, were 'lost' in the previous edit. - hope I've restored correctly, please check up on me. - Ballista 10:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam?

I've been pointed to discuss the recent edit on this and other national parks pages. In each case a link has been put in to "bedsearcher". At best I don't see it as useful (the link comes up with nothing found!), at worst it is at least a form of spam. Opinions sought thanks. --Nigel 08:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced

This article has lots of interesting facts but it's badly in need of some references. Quite a lot of the information is very specific (e.g. the sections on climate and wildlife) and while most of it looks valid to me, there's currently no way of telling how much of it is true - hence the {{Unreferenced}} tag. I can't see myself having the time or resources to tackle it, but if anyone's got a good Lake District-related book collection... Blisco 17:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the RSPB website for my comment on GE which should be good enough. Seems it will be quite hard to get references for most of this article. I can reference the highest peaks to Wainwright and Birkett. I'll also try and get refs for the rest of wildlife section when I can. Nks487 23:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Mountain & Google Maps

I have added a google maps section to the Infobox Mountain template and will work through the top 25 and add their appropriate references Snozzer 10:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this really helpful? Google maps can already ben reached via the grid reference, which is much more standard in the UK than using latitude / longitude. Even if we wanted lat/long, we can still go for a more general link, rather than favouring Google (see, for example, my changes to Cadair Idris). --Stemonitis 12:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe that google maps is far superior to what was there before i.e nothing. At least with google maps you can zoom in and out, get satellite maps and from/to functionality. In addition, the addition of the Google Map link was not made at the expense of anything else, so you still have the same methods of access as before. Snozzer 14:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
My point is, though, that we already have access to Google Maps via the grid ref., and I don't see any reason to give undue advantage to one particular company, be it Google, MSN or whoever. --Stemonitis 15:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
And my point is that a lot of people like the simple google map interface, the magnus page is downright ugly and would make most people hit the back button. Lets make it easy for people to see where the mountains are. Is the problem that you dislike "Google". This is close to a 3 revert rule. "TheNose | Talk" 15:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That page is there for a reason, and that reason is simple. It is not Wikipedia's place to give undue prominence to a single (commercial) product. I think RedWolf's point that this should have been discussed first is valid. And for a new user (<150 edits) to weigh in with threats about the three revert rule is somewhat suspect, I must say. It is your opinion that Google Maps is the best option available; I disagree. For British hills, I would much rather see a single direct link to the OS Get-a-map service, but I accept that in the name of fairness, we must link to many rival products. I think you should too. --Stemonitis 15:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


Stemonitis, I take your point about giving undue prominence, but the same article makes reference to Landranger Maps by OS, when there must be at least 3 other map producers who could easily be linked/referenced instead of Landranger (We should remove the Landranger map reference as well). The comment about my lack of edits and 3RR, isnt fair, today I have made what I saw as a fair contribution to Wikipedia only to have it reverted 3 times, I dont accept it, you dont accept it, but now we are at a sticking point, we both believe we are right and we should seek a better resolution process. Lets rv to the google maps once more and ask for discussion for 14 days to get the general consensus, if after 14 days the consesnsu is one way or another we should agree to that overall view. Do you think that is fair? "TheNose | Talk" 15:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Or, how about we revert to the situation from before the changes were made, and discuss them as a proposal for future improvements? It's generally better to discuss contentious changes before making them, rather than having to defend them afterwards. As regards the Landranger maps, you might have a point, although I do believe the OS maps are seen as the standard by the majority of the UK population. But I agree with your general point that this should be discussed more widely before any sweeping changes are made. --Stemonitis 15:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


How about picking 2 mountains(hills), relatively popular ones from the same regions and doing a different one on each? You know, a which do you like best sort of thing? "TheNose | Talk" 16:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
No, we should decide first and then act. "State your point; don't prove it experimentally" — WP:POINT --Stemonitis 16:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:POINT Actually refers to procedure, not editing Quote "# If you're upset someone didn't follow process in making a change...
  • do find out why they did it and attempt to convince them otherwise
  • don't reverse an arguably good change for no reason other than "out of process"
But semantics apart, I see you have once again reverted before we came to a conclusion? "TheNose | Talk" 16:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
My latest revert (if I'm thinking of the same one you are: [1]) was intended to try and limit the amount of reversion needed, espcially in the event of your proposed change being adopted. And I'm sorry if I've upset you; I didn't know you were upset — I thought this was just a calm discussion. I suppose you never can tell; it's one of the problems with the written word. --Stemonitis 17:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
No, Im not upset, Im a little bit frustrated that you seem to make the changes in a high handed manner as if you own the article. Here are my thoughts. We loose google maps & Landranger because the both give unfair prominence. Then let us jointly work on creating an improved version of magnus, because I dont know about you, but I see it and want to cry. What do people want, they want stats, names, place, details, maps and images. The probably would want to see routes as well. "TheNose | Talk" 17:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I understand your point, but it doesn't bother me as much as it does you. Certainly, you could try to contact Magnus to encourage him to improve the layout of his page, but to me it seems like a decent solution, in principle. All the other information, the statistics, names, details and so on, can be added to the article itself. The external links are only for things that we cannot include, and one major example is maps (unless some cartographer agrees to license his work under the GFDL, which I can't see happening any time soon). It might be possible to remove the irrelevant links in Magnus' list: there's no way I'll want to see maps of Switzerland or the United States when finding out about Blencathra, for instance. That would reduce the amount of scrolling, at least. If you want to remove all mention of Landranger maps, then that too would need to be discussed, probably both at WikiProject Mountains and WikiProject British and Irish hills. My suspicion is that most people will not have a problem in favouring the official national mapping agency, but I could be wrong. By all means ask around, if you consider it a problem. --Stemonitis 17:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

See the continuing discussion at Template talk:Infobox Mountain, where I proposed a compromise: {{Geolinks-UK-mountain}} (and {{Geolinks-IE-mountain}}) . Thanks! --- hike395 10:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of Striding Edge to Photographs of the area

I've been accused of adding an "inappropriate external" link. Please can people judge www.stridingedge.net 's suitability to be added to "Photographs of the area". I'm not involved in the running of the site in any way. 14:54 11 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.15.238.229 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 11 Nov 2006 (UTC)

This site is already on the Striding Edge page anyway (IIRC) to which it is more directly relevant. Check out WP:EL & WP:NOT as well as Wiki rarely requires more links - thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Helvellyn page has the link --Herby talk thyme 15:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Do note that whilst the name of the site is called "Striding Edge", the content covers the whole of the Lake District, so you cannot say that it is more suitable (even if it were linked from the Striding Edge article). As the category in the article is called "Photographs of the area", I see no reason why it shouldn't be added. Whilst I have nothing against http://www.photoboxgallery.com/srsteel , I see a photo diary to be of greater relevance than a link to a *shop*.
You misunderstand - the link already exist on another related page - if you want I'll take it off Helvellyn & you can put it here (I wouldn't disagree). But multiple links are usually inappropriate. If you want to add content to wiki - sign up, if you want to add links expect them to be removed --Herby talk thyme 18:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Issue closed. I'll move it myself. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.15.238.229 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 12 Nov 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of external link to www.vrlakedistrict.co.uk

I've been accused of adding an "inappropriate external" link. The link was to http://www.vrlakedistrict.co.uk - a site with panoramas of the lakes photographed in the latter part of 2006. The site DOES NOT SELL photos, books, walk maps, casino chips etc. and requires no registration etc. all photos, maps are free to view. Comments appreciated.

Hum - hotel search, garage ad, property etc. Take a look at WP:EL and bear in mind that Wiki needs content not links. The links already there are perfectly adequate for the needs of the page. It's not about you personally but the best interest of Wiki --Herby talk thyme 08:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wildlife

The long section on fish does not fit well within the article. Surely it could be limited to a list of rare fish and those under threat?

[edit] Electric Fences affecting compasses?

I've removed the following piece: "One drawback of this new fencing is that they can have an effect of compass readings of hikers due to the electromagnetic interference. Fell walkers have been warned to take care when using a compass near these fences as the readings may be misleading.[citation needed]" Because:

a) Electric fences are widespread throughout the country and so if this problem exists it isn't relevant to the Lakes in particular.

b) It seems to me that you have to be very close to the fence for a noticeable effect

c) The statement is unreferenced and given my doubts above I think it needs one

Feel free to tell me why what i've done is wrong, i'm trying to learn :) 128.243.220.41 01:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There's one such warning given to fellwalkers here: http://www.lamrt.org.uk/crinklecrags.html saying that the fence in question can affect compasses up to 30m away. I agree it seems quite a minor issue. --David Edgar 11:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are the Lake District and the National Park coterminous?

Today's anon edit states explicitly that the Lake District covers a wider area then the National Park. I disagree - my impression has always been that wherever you cross the NP boundary there's a clear transition from typically non-Lakeland to typically Lakeland scenery. What does anyone else think, and can we have a reference to support this POV please? In the absence of references (and this article sorely needs some, by the way), it would be most neutral and verifiable to revert to saying that "the Lake District is a national park". --Blisco 18:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As no one has come forward to defend this idea, I've reverted. --Blisco 18:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate links - favouritism rules?

Why are personal (as opposed to factual) and commercial links allowed on this page?

There are much better and more informative Lake District sites but there seems to be some kind of favouritism, maybe dog lovers are too prevalent.

There are sites that exist for the sheer joy of being there but apart from the BBC the others seem to be there for the owners self promotion.

Andyfellwalker 23:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think they are inappropriate - take them out. However look carefully and look at other similar pages as well. (I probably agree with you btw!) --Herby talk thyme 09:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree; however I also think the BBC page linked is not particularly good as it's about Cumbria in general rather than the Lake District specifically.
I removed all these links, and added instead a link to the Commons Lake District category, which has plenty of appropriate images. --David Edgar 12:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on adverse impact of tourism

I reverted a group of edits that mentioned the adverse impact of tourism on the National Park. In my view, they were inappropriate for the section in which they had been placed. I suggest that anyone who is motivated to do so should add a new section to cover this aspect of the subject.Mikenorton 18:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Lake District Now

Hi I am new to editing Wikipedia so please treat me gently! I have a web site ( http://www.lakedistrictnow.net ) with a daily update from the Lake District. I think this would be of interest to visitors of this page. The site does not make any money, I spend about an hour and a half updating it every evening just for fun! I am happy to contribute to updating the Lake District page but thought it would be best to be upfront and honest and say this is my own site that I would like to add to the page if more experienced editors agree. Please let me know what you think. Thank You - Russell - Paveyark (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your posting & openness. I'm sure that your site has value however according to our policies here (see Conflict of interests) you would not be permitted to add a link to a site that you are associated with. Obviously it would be great if you were able to add content to these pages but I'm afraid the adding of the link would contravene the policy. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)