Talk:Lake District National Park

Comments
Is the whole of the Lake District in the national park? If that is so the redirect to Lake District is all we need. I'm checking that out. Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Lake District article seems to assume that it is talking about the National Park. In which case this should be merged and redirected, surely ?-- Beardo (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Technically, there might be minor boundary differences, but "Lake District" is not formally defined, so many people assume that the area coincides with the National Park boundary. A substantial part of the "South Lakeland" administrative area is outside the National Park boundary, in fact, some of it is within the Yorkshire Dales National Park.  Nevertheless, I think the merge sounds sensible.  The extension of the National Park to include a few more boundary areas of the "Lake District" is currently being discussed by government.  This would probably be a good time to merge the articles.  Does anyone object?   D b f i r s   22:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest different approach - on Polish Wikipedia we try to differentiate regions from forms of protection of environment overlying those regions. National parks for example might be focused on more technical description (eg history of environmental protection, legislature, scientific projects conducted there) which usually is more compact, whereas regions get more of general description, culture, general history (human and geological) etc. For example we have an article about Swedish island and we have an article about national park protecting it. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Peak District National Park is just a redirect, but if we are keeping this article separate then it needs expanding with material about the membership and organisation and (draconian) planning restrictions of the Quango.   D b f i r s   10:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Similarly I'm keen to see a separate entry for the Brecon Beacons and the Brecon Beacons National Park. The Brecon Beacons in the earlier sense of the term refers to a particular range of mountaisn within the central area of what has since 1957 been designated as the Brecon Beacons National Park but which encompasses other upland massifs which go by different names (Black Mountains, The Black Mountain, Fforest Fawr) but which now almost inevitably are described as being a part of the Brecon Beacons. Geopersona (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, why the emotive tag 'draconian', Dbfirs? - they are the same regs as apply in any of the English and Welsh NPs - they are tighter than elsewhere ie non-designated areas, but that's because we as a nation have chosen to protect these special landscapes, just as most other nations have. Also by the way PDNPA is not a quango - it's a special purpose local authority. Geopersona (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the corrections, Geopersona. I couldn't think of a better way to describe a non-elected Government-appointed organisation that has little connection to local democracy, and "Quango" is not a closely-defined term, but I accept that the NPs are not directly responsible to government.  Only some people see the restrictions as "draconian", and I don't have a personal axe to grind with this particular organisation, so I withdraw the word, which was used in jest.  More seriously, I'm reconsidering my opinion above, since I notice that the Lake District Peninsulas are considered to be part of the Lake District, but are never likely to be part of the National Park.  Perhaps we could expand the article on the Lake District National Park with details of membership, aims and protection measures as suggested above.  There is a difference between British National Parks and most national parks in other countries which are in central ownership.  Parts of the Lake District article will then need moving to here.    D b f i r s   08:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Has some consensus been reached on the merge issue? As a national park article it is significantly less developed than some of its counterparts and I suspect most of the reason for that is because the effort that would have gone into the areas relevant to the national park have been directed into the main Lake District article. If we can establish a clear direction on this, then I am sure this article will begin to flourish and will do so rapidly.Kwib (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No consensus was reached, but a unilateral decision was taken by one editor who, I assume, will ensure that all material in this article is included in the target of the redirect. I've no strong opinion either way, except to note again that some of the lake district is not in the national park (even after the expansion), but all of the national park is in the lake district, of course, so, if we are merging, then this is the correct direction.    D b f i r s   22:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw just now that there'd been a discussion here after a history of this article going back and forth between a freestanding article and a redirect. I came across the article on the region in July 2019 and it was a mess because, over and over, it conflated the region with the park and it was hard to keep track of which was being discussed at any given point. So I aggregated the material specific to the park and brought it back here. This article is now certainly large enough to be freestanding, covering a park that is clearly notable on its own. Largoplazo (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is still some confusion between Park and District.