Talk:Peak District

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Disputed: Dambusters - Ladybower Reservoir image and caption 

message: 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)
thread_title:  False factoid regarding visitor numbers 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unidentified location