Talk:Lake District

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)

Rather late in the day (2 1/2 years late), but there's no reason to say they are the same. The Lake District National Park was drawing boundaries on a previously ill-defined area that was still referred to as the Lake District. There are certainly bits around the edge that could well be regarded as part of the Lake District, but aren't part of the national park (Kendal, fells between the A6 and M6, for example). Quickly scanning through the article suggests that it's currently not mentioning any difference, so I'll try to dig out a reference and fix this.Riedquat (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Boundary changes to the Lake District national Park are currently being discussed. The definition of "Lake District" depends on whom you ask. Some of the South Lakeland administrative area is outside the current national park, in fact some of it is inside the Yorkshire Dales National Park. Dbfirs 07:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just reverted the addition of the Furness District (formerly Lancashire). Was this ever part of "The Lake District"? Is it now? Dbfirs 22:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The article addition was talking about the historical counties of Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire (the latter included Coniston) not just Furness. Dabbler (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please accept my apologies. Lancashire extended further north than I realised. (I should have checked first.) Dbfirs 07:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the 'Lake District' has never had a boundary and simply been a pointer to the area in general. I also feel that the 'Lake District' doesn't actually physically exist and has only developed more defined boundaries through the creation of the National Park. I would therefore support the merge of the 'Lake District' into the 'Lake District National Park' rather than the other way around. pmailkeey 2011:9:3

I disagree on the direction of the merge. The older and more widely used term is just "Lake District". I don't think Wordsworth would have agreed with you that the Lake District doesn't actually physically exist! Dbfirs 21:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Quote: "The Lakes" or "the Lake District" as the name of a well marked region of Britain is familiar enough, though it does not coincide with any administrative unit. True, the core of the Lake District, the Lakes proper, have become a National Park, and have for that purpose been defined; but the National Park, comprising essentially the mountains and hills of the centre, does not include the surrounding lowlands. (Page 197 of "The Common Lands of England & Wales" by W G Hoskins and L Dudley Stamp, members of the Royal Commission on Common Land, 1955-1958; published by Collins in 1963.) Dbfirs 21:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

See new section #Lake District and LDNPA boundaries below.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Daffodils

the link to the poem of that name takes you to a wikipedia article about the plant; that would be fine if the article was talking about the plant but it's talking about the poem

why don't I fix it? well why don't you delete some of the endless "featured" articles about computer games, Simpsons episodes and related crap

(smiley face) Mr Poechalkdust (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead image

The current wide-aspect image really isn't suitable as a lead image as its small height means the image isn't too clear when set at the recommended width of 300 pixels, and 400 pixels is too wide/intrusive. It would be better if someone could come up with a more conventional shaped image for the lead - there are lots to choose from on Wikimedia Commons --Simple Bob (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Is it too wide and intrusive, though? I know it depends largely on the screen resolution you're viewing it on, but at 1280x1024 (very much a standard resolution on most modern LCD monitors), it looks perfectly reasonable to me. There are a lot of images on Commons, but not many of them are as good in my (biased) opinion. This one shows three of the major attractions of the Lake District: a pretty town/village, majestic mountains and a blue lake, all in a pleasing (albeit slightly too panoramic for your tastes) composition which is more difficult than it seems. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

MOS is quite clear about lead image width. Panoramas look great within the body of an article but are distracting in the lead. And you are wrong to assume 1280x1024 is the norm these days. I just checked the stats on my own website and as usual 40% of clients have a resolution of 1024x768. Quite a few have much lower. Actual browser resolution may be even lower if the browser is not full-width on the screen. That's why the recommendation is for 300px leading image - so that text and graphics can site next to each other at the top of an article. --Simple Bob (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What about some of these, seen in a quick view of the Lake District category on WIkimedia commons, which show both lakes and mountains in the same image

MOS isn't really that clear since it says 'usually', not 'always', implying there are reasons for exceptions. I'd say images that are panoramic in nature might be a pretty good exception... But I concede your point. Still, if you're not using a browser with the full width of the screen, it's your own fault if it doesn't display correctly. ;-) Perhaps it doesn't have to be the lead image. It'd be a shame though, since I don't think the others are quite as good. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no good reason to ignore the guideline here, 300px maximum. Though I'd definitely try to find a more appropriate image for the lead. Jeni ^(talk) 17:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we use an alternative for the leading image and use the panoramic one further down the page where we could perhaps make it wider without it being so intrusive. As for whether one image is better than another, that is not NPOV ;-). Dabbler (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of confusion on Wikipedia about what the NPOV guideline refers to. It doesn't mean editors can't have opinions or biases, it just means the content should project a NPOV. Having an opinion on which image is better is hardly breaching NPOV! :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Lake District is one out of 15 National Parks in Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.124.209 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC) The Lake District is very very beautifull —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.164.255.229 (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Location map

Lake District

I've uploaded a location map of the Lake District to Commons (shown to right). I have not created an associated {{location map}} template, but this can easily be done if desired.

If this is created, it allow enable creation a map of the Lakes similar to the one under construction at Talk:Dartmoor#Location map, and could be used in related articles (see this example). Hope people find it useful.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Geography of the Lake District

On what basis has the area been divided into the sections that appear on the map and are described in the text? Are they entirely arbitrary for this article or is there some particular basis to this division? It would be helpful to the reader to have it explained. thanks Geopersona (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think they are the divisions described in the "Wainwright" books, but perhaps a Wainwright expert can check on this and add a reference or a note to the article. Dbfirs 21:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the map to the right, I see dark lines seemingly splitting the Park 4-ways, N, S, E & W. They look to me like the borough boundaries within the county of Cumbria; namely: N: Allerdale; S: South Lakeland District; E: Eden W: Copeland.

pmailkeey 2011:9:3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.47.169 (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are correct, and therefore that map is not appropriate for the article. The map mentioned by Geopersona above is the one in the article, based on Wainwright. Dbfirs 21:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Rainfall

Is there a good reference for the extremely high (over 5,000 mm) average annual rainfall recorded at Sprinkling Tarn? I've looked for one but can't find any.

Meltingpot (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I've read it somewhere, possibly in the local paper, but the best I can find just now is this old article in Nature which gives a lower estimate. Sprinkling tarn is just beyond the top of Scafell. I think there is now a rain gauge up there, but the only record I can find is 6,527mm (257in) in 1954 from The Times. Dbfirs 19:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

... later ... I've found a couple of refs so I'll add them to the article. Dbfirs 19:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I look forward to reading them. I remember that 257 in (or it might have been 256 in?) figure from an early 1970s edition of the "Guinness Book of Records". Meltingpot (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I've now had a look at both of those references and I don't think either of them is authoritative, sorry. One of them links back to the Wikipedia entry about Sprinkling Tarn, which in turn links to a site called "Lakes, Meres, Tarns & Water" which doesn't give any meteorological information about the tarn, and the other one doesn't give any meteorological references to support the claim; it just says the annual average there is over 5,000 mm.

In the absence of any better reference I think we should use this one as a source for the highest average annual rainfall figures in both England and Wales;

https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2014/10/20/what-is-the-wettest-city-in-the-uk/

Meltingpot (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Styhead is not far from Sprinkling Tarn, though the Met Office admits that rainfall can vary over a fairly short distance. It would be good to find some actual data rather than press release blogs from the archives. Dbfirs 19:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a much higher figure for Styhead in 2015 - over 6 metres of rain [1] (pg 23). From this source, you could back calculate 1981-2010 average for this location. 2015 was the year of Storm Desmond, so clearly not typical. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Yes, 6056mm - that's a lot of rain (approx. 238.43 inches in old measurements). Meltingpot (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Heafed sheep?

The agriculture section talks of sheep being 'heafed'. Is this a local dialect word or else an error for the commonly used term 'hefted' which refers to the practice described? cheers Geopersona (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think both terms are used, but I live in a part of Cumbria just outside the Lake District, so I don't know which is more common. I suspect that "heafed" (pronounced heeaf'd) is the older term and is retained in local dialect. "Heaf" (meaning "heft") has been used in Cumberland and Westmorland since at least 1852 according to the OED. Dbfirs 21:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Whilst the examples given are doubtless a part of the Cumbrian dialect they are not local only to the Lake District as, I think, the text implies. Malham Tarn and Cross Fell immediately come to mind as just two instances of localities employing these terms which are considerably removed from the Lake District. Perhaps an expert in dialect might assist us? This section might in any case better be titled 'Place-names' or 'Dialect terms' - depending on what we want from it of course. cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

UK's 2nd most popular charging attraction?

The statement that Windermere Lake Steamers are now the UK's second most popular charging tourist attraction is not referenced. Whilst it might just be true, it seems to me to be unlikely - there must surely be many venues in London for a start which greatly exceed the numbers who ride the Windermere steamers. cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

They are the most popular charging attraction in Cumbria. The steamers and launches carry over 1.35 million visitors each year. Perhaps someone has some national figures to compare? Dbfirs 22:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This page lists it as fifth in England. But it doesn't list places like the London Eye (which claims 3.5 million per year) and theme parks (three of which are listed here (pdf) as having more visitors per year). --David Edgar (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll adjust the article, avoiding an English position. Dbfirs 20:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Keswick Panorama - Oct 2009.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Keswick Panorama - Oct 2009.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 16, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-05-16. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 22:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A panoramic view of Skiddaw mountain, the town of Keswick, and Derwentwater, as viewed from Walla Crag on a clear autumn afternoon in the Lake District. Located in North West England, the district is a popular tourist destination and is famous for its lakes and mountains, especially those within its national park.Photo: David Iliff

An article in need of improvement?

I have long thought that for such an important topic this has been a sub-standard article. I'm pleased to see that the map subdividing it has gone and perhaps now is the time to take a fresh look at a description of the place. I believe the readability of the article would also benefit from a removal of the long lists of peaks and lakes - these are adequately covered on other pages (or if not thought to be adequate, these list could easily be improved). I shall probably get around to making some changes shortly but if anyone has been meaning to do the same, then perhaps an appropriate way forward could be agreed upon? cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I thought the map showing Wainwright-style divisions was an excellent complement to the text, but perhaps it belongs in the other article you propose? Dbfirs 07:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Though book sales etc indicate that he's clearly been a popular writer on the Lake District, I must admit I've never really been a fan and so am not especially taken with any Wainwright-based approaches to describing the area. A description of the area would best start with an overview and then a breakdown by more traditional means - these divisions that are currently listed are I guess an invention of Wainwright's: however we're not obliged to follow his approach. I'll try to work something up to see if it can do the descriptive job better.Geopersona (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't dismiss Wainwright's divisions entirely assomething similar to his approach makes sense but some of the boundaries he chose to use are a little quirky - a fact recognised in the current article on the Southern Fells. Also his intention in writing was to describe the fells of the Lake District and not the Lake District per se, which might equally (or more) usefully be described from a valleys point of view. cheers Geopersona (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fair comment. We could include the Wainwright divisions in a separate article, perhaps "Fells of the Lake District". Of course, Wainwright went further east than the National Park, including the Howgills that are about to become part of the extended Yorkshire Dales National Park (in 2016). Dbfirs 22:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

See also 'Bill Smith'

Whatever Bill Smith's merits as a person and a fellrunner, it is inappropriate to list him under 'see also', as this section would rapidly exceed the size of the article itself if every Lakeland devotee were linked to. I have therefore removed the link. cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed 2 further links from this same section: Kirkby Moor is already linked within the article and also the random link to the Peak District National Park too - why not list all the national parks if listing this one - such lists can quickly become unwieldy and irrelevant. Others too could be chopped from the list I'm sure. let's try to keep it relevant and helpful. cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

New images please

Those who are able to supply images will be able to helpfully illustrate the new sections I've added on settlements and transport - I hope! thanks Geopersona (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Industry and agriculture

Much more could be said about both topics and a split into two sections would be desirable. If nobody else gets around to it, I'll make a start myself at some point. Mind you it would be better if experts were to take a hand in this and supply suitable references for the material. There is still a lot of woolly stuff in this article as a whole (pun not originally intended but there we are!) cheers Geopersona (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now separated these out and added 'Forestry' to the 'agriculture' section though this could itself be separated out if the relevant content is added. I've included both of these together with the tourism material in a new section titled 'economy. All this is in an attempt to introduce both more content but also more structure. Others might disagree with some of this- it can be discussed and further changed or reversed as we see fit - but for the moment I thought it best to be (at least slightly!) bold. cheers Geopersona (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd add that this site looks interesting and may be a useful source of info for anyone editing the industry section; http://www.cumbria-industries.org.uk/list.htm Geopersona (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Lakeland"

I think this usage is almost entirely adjectival, and indeed commercial, as in "Lakeland scenery". See this talk page for examples. Rothorpe (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

How about this official usage - South Lakeland? In addition, even though it is often used adjectivally or commercially, it should be noted as a name for the area to allow people to link it with the Lake District as opposed to some other area with lakes. Dabbler (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hope you approve of how I've put it back in. Rothorpe (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks good and it meets the purpose.Dabbler (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that's right; I've never heard anyone say I'm off to Lakeland for the weekend. but in the phrases 'Lakeland Holidays', 'Lakeland Plastics', 'Lakeland Fells' and many others it is used in that fashion. Geopersona (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting this some years on, I think we do need to further tweak the wording. I suspect that use of the term 'Lakeland' to describe the area hardly ever happens - I've never it heard it described that way in my entire life and I've been a regular visitor over decades. We do however have to acknowledge that adjectival use it enjoys, as in 'the Lakeland Fells' and similar terms. Otherwise we risk the reader unfamiliar with the area imagining that Lakeland is a name for the area that's actually used; it isn't. I suggest 'The Lake District, also known colloquially as 'the Lakes', is a mountainous region in North West England.' 'Lakeland is the name of one or two commercial outfits, the local group of the LDWA and then there are the Lakeland Museum and Lakeland Motor Museum and books and other items which include Lakeland in their titles, generally in adjectival fashion. I might reserve introducing the term to the 'Economy' section of the article since its use falls broadly within that sphere - tourism, commerce etc. Thoughts? Geopersona (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Coastline

Does anyone have enough knowledge to add a section on the Park's section of coastline to the Physical Geography section? Not the part of the Park one instantly pictures, but it struck me as an obvious omission? Grunners (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The National Park has only a small section of coastline, but the "Lake District" can include the remainder of the coast including the "Lakeland Peninsulas". I agree that it would be good to add such a paragraph. Any offers? Dbfirs 12:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added a couple of paras relating to the NP's extending to the sea in the west and at points in the south - the (largely undefined?) traditional Lake District may or may not do so! cheers Geopersona (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I've added a mention of the peninsulas, though they are only sometimes regarded as part of the Lake District. Dbfirs 04:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I integrated them into the existing section, shifting its overall focus from the park to the region, in keeping with the scope of the article. Largoplazo (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Biomes

Not too long ago I added Coniferous forest, deciduous forest, lake and moorland as biomes in the infobox. I am starting to think whether they should be more specific or biomes should be only added if they are confined to the park. Sl3nderman3006 (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Lake District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110111003247/http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/about_us/news/2009/111209.aspx to http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/about_us/news/2009/111209.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120518032837/http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designatedareas/new/northwestdesignationproject/default.aspx to http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designatedareas/new/northwestdesignationproject/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825080327/http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/site-information/search.aspx?terms=lake+district+peninsulas&cf=keywords to http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/site-information/search.aspx?terms=lake+district+peninsulas&cf=keywords
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/visiting/thingstodo/green_roads
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cumbria-industries.org.uk/a-z-of-industries/roads/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/visiting/thingstodo/green_roads
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/roads-transport/public-transport-road-safety/countryside-access/hotr/hierarchy_of_trails_routes.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/visiting/thingstodo/green_roads/green_road_gatescarth
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gleam-uk.org/contentious-issues/walna-scar-road-restricted-byway-order-renewed/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Removed cite

In this edit the cite is mangled and a working archive page doesn't support the given cite. -- GreenC 16:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I've replaced the mangled ref with a correct one; same author and date and quote. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Lake District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/site-information/search.aspx?terms=lake%20district%20peninsulas&cf=keywords
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/552950/1.2-RoW-FAQs.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cumbria-industries.org.uk/a-z-of-industries/roads/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/visiting/thingstodo/green_roads
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/roads-transport/public-transport-road-safety/countryside-access/hotr/hierarchy_of_trails_routes.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/visiting/thingstodo/green_roads/green_road_gatescarth
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gleam-uk.org/contentious-issues/walna-scar-road-restricted-byway-order-renewed/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605003213/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/nw/ to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/nw/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Map of English & Welsh national parks

This is out of date now that the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales national parks extended in 2016 so that they now abut each other at the M6 motorway. Could someone who knows how to do these tings modify or replace it with something modern? I expect it will be used in other articles too. cheers Geopersona (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Lake District and LDNPA boundaries

I question the accuracy and intelligibility of:

The Lake District National Park includes nearly all of the Lake District, though the town of Kendal, some coastal areas, and the Lakeland Peninsulas are currently outside the park boundary.

This seems to imply that Kendal and much of the coast should be considered as part of the Lake District. This does not fit with most guide books, including historic guide books. For instance, Martineau's guide (the one that has probably been in the longest usage over the time that tourists have visited the area) covers the coastal settlements of, for instance, Seascale, Ravenglass, Drigg, etc. - but if you read the text it is clear that they are only in the book because they are useful access points to the Lake District, having hotels, railway stations, etc. Baddeley's guide is the same - the maps in it are the first clue - they do not even take in the south-western end of Wastwater, and Kendal barely makes it onto the index map.

Given the entirely different geography of the western coastal plain that lies between the fells and the sea, I would struggle to see how anyone could consider them part of the Lake District. The same applies to the peninsulas and Kendal. What makes you think that the prison at Haverigg should be considered part of the Lake District, or the shipyard at Barrow? The clue surely has to be in the name, the Lake District is typified by the Lakes, which happen to be surrounded by fells. One could even go so far as to say that the LDNPA boundaries take in some places that are not part of the Lake District - for instance Gosforth, or the Irton levels.

For this piece of the article to survive, I think it needs to be supported by highly authoritative sources, with no similar sources taking a contrary view.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I think we just have to accept that usage varies. There is no official definition, but I thought that the book I found in a second-hand bookshop (see above) served to put forward an early "official" viewpoint. I agree that some usage counts just the central lakes area and surrounding mountains. I've modified the claim. Dbfirs 09:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking first at usage. I suggest that all the guide books and other material presumes that the "Lake District" is the area of lakes and fells that happens to be contained within the national park. To many people, the coastal stretch down to Ravenglass is actually the anomaly, in that it is part of the Lake District National Park, but not part of the Lake District.

I mentioned some old guide books as they are closer to the time when the name was coined. I don't have a copy of Wainwright to hand, but I don't recollect him mentioning anything outside the "lakes and fells" landscape.

Then we look for an official definition. The UNESCO World Heritage Listing does grant the "The English Lake District" a particular defined status. You can find the map at [2] - look for map ES1, and this document also contains

The English Lake District is a self-contained mountainous area in North West England of some 2,292 square kilometres. Its narrow, glaciated valleys radiating from the central massif with their steep hillsides and slender lakes exhibit an extraordinary beauty and harmony.....

which looks to be a good definition to me. It also qualifies as "official" as these are the words of the British government, as accepted by UNESCO.

Also in the realm of officialdom, look at the interplay between Cumbria County Council and the Lake District, particularly when they discuss the tourism industry. From that standpoint, it is quite clear that for local government, the Lake District has become synonymous with the national park.

I would be interested to know, beyond the single source that you cite, what else makes you think that the boundaries of the national park do not broadly coincide with the area that people refer to when they talk about the Lake District.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

....and I have just seen the edit made - but I am not sure that this does the trick.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain which side of the argument it supports, but I do know that Kendal is usually referred to as the "Gateway to the Lakes". This seems to imply to me that Kendal is just outside the Lake District, but heavily associated with it: however, you could probably draw the opposite conclusion. VisitCumbria, for their part, seem to view Kendal as outside of the Lake District, mentioning it as being "Situated to the South of the Lake District". DiggingLake (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the fundamental problem with the article is its structure: by the first section after the lead being titled "Lake District National Park" there is an implication that the National Park defines the Lake District. This is unfortunate, as the two have separate identities; also there is a third entity to mention: the UNESCO World Heritage Site, whose boundaries are determined by the old National Park. The article should clearly explain these 3 different geographical entities. Much of the section titled "Development of Tourism" is wrongly placed under "Economy" as it is has substantially historical content and has nothing to do with the current economy. Moving this would make the economic aspects of the modern tourist industry easier to understand - but unfortunately what is currently there is largely without citations and does not cover important issues (for instance the type of tourism that the LDNPA seeks to encourage, which probably translates into the zipwire debate, among other things). The history of Lake District tourism would sit better earlier in the article, so putting the identity of the Lake District in context. Much of the historical stuff in the article is unreferenced - but there are good authoritative academic sources out there - it just needs a bit of work.

There is a lot more that needs doing with this article - for instance the section "Literature and art" contains only 2 references - much of the text is entirely unsupported by citations. The same criticism applies throughout. The whole thing needs a substantial amount of work.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Wainwright's Pictorial Guide states clearly in the introduction that the National Park boundaries are not a suitable guide to what he considers the extent of Lakeland. Furthermore his book, The Outlying Fells of Lakeland is almost exclusively about hills that lie outside the National Park boundaries. OrewaTel (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

For locals, the distinction is the National Park boundary, if it's within, then it's the Lake District, if it's just outside then it's referred as "being close to" or "just outside". I can't think of anywhere just out outside the National Park that is deemed to be part of the Lake District, except, maybe Cockermouth + Kendal. Regards --Devokewater (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

References

National Park split

I've WP:BOLDly split the section about the national park off into its own article. My rationale is that the Lake District was known as such long before the designation of the park in 1951, and most of the information in this article is about the Lake District, not specifically about the park. In addition, the article contained an infobox that was really specific to the park. Finally, as the content notes, the park isn't coterminous with the district.

Some content in this article outside of the original section about the park references the park. In each of these cases, I or someone else needs to see whether

• the information really pertains to the district, irrespective of its designation as a park (which will include any information that was true before its 1951 designation), in which case "park" or "national park" needs to be removed or replaced with "district"; or
• the information is specific to the park, in which case, depending on whether it's a phrase, a sentence, or an entire section, the information should be transferred to the park article.

Largoplazo (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Largoplazo (talk), I wondered why there was two seperate articles for the Lake District National Park + Lake District, now you've explained I totally agree with the rationale behind this. --Devokewater (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Michelin starred restaurants

The article currently says (under Gastronomy):
"The region has four Michelin Star restaurants: L'Enclume, The Samling in Ambleside, The Forest Side and Gilpin Hotel."

L'Enclume is situated outside the National Park (and therefore outside the World Heritage Site) in Cartmel. Noting that the article struggles to reach a definition of what is meant by "the Lake District", I question whether or not this Michelin starred restaurant should be in the list. If the consensus goes against me and the article includes this restaurant, the reference should be

The Samling Hotel is listed in the Michelin Guide, but has lost its Michelin star.

Missing from the article are the following, all new for the 2020 list:

The Cottage in the Wood (Braithwaite, CA12 5TW)

Allium at Askham Hall (CA10 2PF)

Old Stamp House (Ambleside)

The Forest Side and the Gilpin Hotel (or more correctly, Hrishi - this hotel has 2 restaurants, the other is only Michelin listed, not starred) both continue to be Michelin starred. Counting that all up, that makes 5 restaurants with a Michelin star in the Lake District - or 6 if people insist that Cartmel is in the Lake District (which I really think it is not). It might be a better alternative, if L'Enclume is to be mentioned, to say that the 2-starred L'Enclume is just outside the park's boundary in Cartmel.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Geographically, L'Enclume is just outside the Lake District, only by a couple of miles, however it's so close + due to it's reputation it should be included in the list however noting its location being "just outside". Regards --Devokewater (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This was dealt with last year [3] - I should have put a note on the talk page to that effect.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

References

National Park merge

I've just been BOLD and merged 'Lake District National Park' back into this article. The former article wasn't very long, so most of its content could easily be incorporated into a subsection here, with some going into other subsections and a little removed as duplication.

When a national park covers a pre-existing region I find it's often possible to include information on the park (e.g. its administration and purpose) as a subsection of the region's article, rather than it needing its own page. You can see this at Snowdonia, Exmoor, and New Forest, for example. From what I can gather park-specific references were never fully removed from this article after the 2019 split, and I'd suggest that's in part because the region and national park cover nearly identical areas and so it's easier to discuss them together. So long as we're careful about language where the boundaries of the national park and pre-existing region differ I think we'll be fine.

[pinging @Devokewater, @Largoplazo] A.D.Hope (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)