This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
The article on Peak District is supported by the Derbyshire WikiProject, which is a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of Derbyshire-related articles on Wikipedia.DerbyshireWikipedia:WikiProject DerbyshireTemplate:WikiProject DerbyshireDerbyshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles
Peak District is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject West Midlands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of West Midlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.West MidlandsWikipedia:WikiProject West MidlandsTemplate:WikiProject West MidlandsWest Midlands articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British and Irish hills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the hills and mountains of Great Britain and Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British and Irish hillsWikipedia:WikiProject British and Irish hillsTemplate:WikiProject British and Irish hillsBritish and Irish hills articles
Disputed: Dambusters - Ladybower Reservoir image and caption[edit]
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)[reply]
-- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
Waugh's textbook references (and errors) are no longer in the article. Haploidavey (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
