Talk:List of areas in the United States National Park System

Ampersands

Have to find correct approach to ampersands in the links. User:ClaudeMuncey

have you tried &-a-m-p-; (delete the hyphens; when I type & without them, it duly displays as an ampersand)

Vicki Rosenzweig

Have you tried this?

&

[Previous response struck out, & less confusing markup for communicating this method provided in bold, by Jerzy(t) 02:49, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)]

Also, does "Maintained by the National Park Service" imply some that aren't? Vicki Rosenzweig

No, it was just the boilerplate phrase I was using to identify that connection. In reality, the NPS helps maintain all sorts of preserved areas, historical, natural etc. A big chunk of downtown Washington DC is administered by the NPS (which I am planning to break out in this list, because it includes things that would be city parks and such in any other city). ClaudeMuncey, Monday, April 1, 2002

To change or not to change

This list is currently set up as a list of parks administered by the National Park Service. Therefore Allegheny State Park is just wrong. And so are Valles Caldera and Grand Island -which are part of the National Forest System under the Dept of Ag, not the National Parks under the Interior Dept. Do we want to change the purpose of this list? I don't know if other non-NPS parks are listed. We should check the National Preserves and National Recreation Areas which designations both NPS and National Forest use. Rmhermen 17:47, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

I removed all wild and scenic rivers from this list. 3 were under NPS, one wasn't. Of the 163 current "Wild and Scenic Rivers" only about 35 are under the NPS. I suggest it would be easier to create a separate list of all of them. Otherwise we will have to stay vigilant against people adding National Forest Rivers or BLM rivers to this list. (Unless we change the whole point of the list, of course.) Rmhermen 18:17, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I think it might make more sense to have separate articles for each of the sub-lists on this page. The title is List of U.S. national parks not List of properties managed by the U.S. National Park Service. Then again, looking at the mess of how these things are classified on the NPS site, I'm not so sure about separate lists for all of the types. Perhaps these should be an alphabetical (uncategorized) list of all NPS managed properties. Then have separate lists for select categories, like:

• U.S. National Battlefields and Military Parks
• U.S. National Cemeteries
• U.S. National Heritage Areas
• U.S. National Historic Parks and Historic Sites
• U.S. National Monuments and Memorials
• U.S. National Parks and Preserves
• U.S. National Parkways
• U.S. National Rivers and Recreation Areas
• U.S. National Seashores and Lakeshores
• U.S. National Historic, Heritage and Scenic Trails

There may be some overlap in the lists -- an individual entity could be listed on more than on category. For example, the Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve could appear on both the Monuments and Memorials list and the Parks and Preserves list. Not sure exactly what to do with the "Other" category on this page -- what the NPS lists as "Affiliated Areas" and "Other Designations". The National Rivers and Recreation Areas category could probably include all the Wild and Scenic Rivers, regardless of which fedeal agency manages them. Maybe we could even come up with some sort of common footer that would appear on all these types. Bkonrad 20:56, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Page Move

I undid the page move to List of nationally protected areas of the United States. This title is less correct than the current title. This page contains only National Park Service protected areas - not all U.S. nationally protected areas. It doesn't contain BLM, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife, or Corps of Engineers' park lands. Rmhermen 23:38, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

It seems the name has been changed multiple times. However, the current one "List of U.S. National Parks Service parks" is technically incorrect. The BIG error is that the agency is the "National Park Service" not "Parks". Also, it seems that in U.S. gov't agencies, they never combine "U.S." and "National"--it is either/or. Third, they are not all called "parks." It may seem clumsy, but I propose:

List of National Park Service (U.S.) areas, or perhaps a better one: List of areas in the National Park System of the United States

"National Park System" seems to be the term used to describe the physical collection of properties managed by the NPS. Technically, though, I am not sure affiliated areas (like Father Marquette National Memorial) are part of the "system" even though in general terms they are NPS areas. Any thoughts. — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks like I made the error of adding the "s" to Parks. The U.S. does use "U.S. National Park Service" on some occassions: "A website that covers all aspects of plant and animal protection within the US National Park Service."[www.nature.nps.gov/biology/]. It is also important to us to have a clear and obvious title and perhaps to disambiguate from national park service of other countries. A quick search showed a reference to the "Galapagos National Park Service" which is just odd. I think List of areas in the National Park System of the United States is good even if there is some confusion about "affliated" areas. Perhaps we could label those on the list, which would be a good thing regardless of teh title. Rmhermen 13:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's give it a week, and go with the "system" title without objection. Some text at the top will need to be changed to explain what "NP System" means. For my comments on affiliated areas, see below under "General Comments". — Eoghanacht ^talk 15:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Page moved earlier today. (Also, Rmhermen, good work on dispanded info.) — Eoghanacht ^talk 17:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Disbanded parks

I don't think Hawaii National Park should be listed here. It did not disband; it merely split into two parks. The land it covered still enjoys full National Park status, just under different names (Hawaii Volcanoes and Haleakala).

However Hawaii National Park did cease to exist. The point of the page is the national parks not the exact land that they protect which changes rather frequently. And the split is noted next to the disbandment. Rmhermen 15:09, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

What about the "General Grant National Park" (or something similar) that later became part of Kings Canyon NP? —ScouterSig 03:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I found a mention of it on [1]. —ScouterSig 15:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Mackinac Island State Park does not appear with its own entry in the list of National Parks. It is mentioned as the result from the disbanded national park Mackinac National Park. Other resulting areas do exist in the list of National Parks; I think this one was overlooked. If I am right, would someone please correct this? (visitor)

The forgotten parks

Does anyone here have a clue as to what happened to Misty Fjords and Admiralty Island national monuments? Most modern maps still label them, yet they are not on the National Park Service website. They appear to have been transferred to the Forest Service, but when and why I still don't know.

-E. Brown Squawk Box 7 July 2005

I believe that they were created under the Forest Servive and were never under the NPS. Rmhermen July 8, 2005 17:41 (UTC)

Not listed are the Palo Alto Battlefield National Historical Park and associated Resaca de la Palma Battlefield (which is part of the authorized boundary of the Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Park, though still remains under the ownership of the Brownsville Community Foundation. In 2008, Congress authorized the expansion of Palo Alto to include the Resaca de la Palma Battlefield as a discontinuous unit - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-4828). Both parks are located in Brownsville, TX. (http://www.nps.gov/paal/index.htm). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemazza77 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A few general comments on list format

After someone gave me a copy of a little red book called The National Parks: Index 2001-2003. I have been adding stub articles to some red links on this list. Here are some changes to the format of this list that I am thinking of effecting eventually (assuming I get around to it before I become bored with my project). If anyone has any comments, let me know.

1) Leave all links to the exact name of the park/site even in cases where it is a redirect. For example: [[Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine]] rather than [[Fort McHenry|Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine]]. My reasoning is that, although I generally prefer the later approach in articles I work on, it occurred to me that (although unlikely) someone could put together a valid article about the Nat'l Monument separate from the general article about the fort. Should this happen, the link here should be toward the article specific to the protected area. If no one ever does create such an article, the redirect will do its job.

2) Somehow distinguish "affiliated areas" or related areas from those owned and/or managed by the NPS (see National Park Service article. I am thinking of using italics. For example:

• Benjamin Franklin National Memorial

The list of affiliated areas (according to my red book) consists of: AIDS Memorial Grove NMem, Aleutian World War II NHArea, American Memorial Park, Benjamin Franklin NMem, Chicago Portage NHS, Chimney Rock NHS, Father Marquette NMem, Gloria Dei (Old Swedes') Church NHS, Green Springs National Landmark District, Historic Camden Revolutionary War Site, Ice Age National Scientific Reserve, International Peace Garden, Inupiat Heritage Center, Jamestown NHS, Lower East Side Tenement NHS, McLoughlin House NHS, New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, NJ Pinelands NReserve, Port Chicago Naval Magazine NMem, Red Hill Patrick Henry NMem, Roosevelt Campobello International Park, Sewall-Belmont House NHS, Thomas Cole NHS, Touro Synagogue NHS. (The book also lists as somehow related to the NPS: National Heritage Areas, the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and the National Trails System.)

3) For depenent park areas, either remove from the list entirely, or show them indented under the parent park. An extreme examle:

• Rock Creek Park
  • Battleground National Cemetery
  • Meridian Hill Park
  • The Old Stone House
  • Peirce Mill
  • Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway

Or perhaps, leave the ones with a normal designation (like Nat'l Cemetery, or Parkway) under those categories, but (re)move the ones that do not fit under a normal header.

— Eoghanacht ^talk 15:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Some responses:

• 1. Links should go directly to the article. We don't need to encourage more stub articles that would probably be merge. Redirects should exists from all exact names that differ from our article titles. There shouldn't be many of those.

I was not proposing to create any extra red links, and thus encourage useless stub articles, rather I was suggesting to let a redirect do its job where it exists. The best example I can think of is Benjamin Franklin National Memorial which now is a redirect to the Franklin Institute. When I started to write a stub for the memorial, I quickly realized that it would be better for now just to add it to the Franklin Institue article, and set a redirect under the memorial name. However, for all I know the sculpture/memorial itself may be worthy of a full blown article separate from the Institute (it which the memorial sits). If someone writes such an article someday, replacing the current redirect article, then this list should point to the memorial article, rather than the institute article -- as would be the case if the link looks like this [[Franklin Institute|Benjamin Franklin National Memorial]]. Battleground National Cemetery is another example. Maybe it does not matter, as if such a thing happens, the author (hopefully) would fix the link on this list, and also put a link in the old article in which the stub was located. — Eoghanacht ^talk 13:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• 2. I would be fine with simply adding affliated site after the park names. The NPS website doesn't bother to differentiate the sites.
• 3.Depedent areas will probably not deserve full articles. I would suggest linking them as, for example:

* [[Rock Creek Park]] ** [[Rock Creek Park|Battleground National Cemetery]] ** [[Rock Creek Park|Meridian Hill Park]] ** [[Rock Creek Park|The Old Stone House]] ** [[Rock Creek Park|Peirce Mill]] ** [[Rock Creek Park|Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway]] with appropriate redirects created where necessary. I would note be opposed to listing items twice, once in a tree of dependent areas and once in the appropriate category if any. But it would be odd to not have Battleground National Cemetery listed under National Cemeteries.

Let's list ones that fall under a separate category twice. Otherwise, only list ones that actually have a separate article (in this case, Meridian Hill Park). User:Eoghanacht

Cemeteries

Is the decision to include some, but not all, of the National Cemeteries arbitrary? Nationalparks 15:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Before I became involved in working on some of these articles, there already was a header on this list called "National Cemeteries." I have been adding National Cemeteries owned by the National Park Service here as I come across mention of them in park literature. (This list would not include those administered by the Veterans Administration). As far as I can tell, the NPS manages these whenever they were associated with a site of historic importance that was transfered to it by the War Department -- usually battlefields. I have not found them listed as a group anywhere, but have come across them when researching certain parks. I image there is some sort of management policy that applies to them specifically, so I presume they are (to some extent) legally distinct properties administered under their "parent parks." If anyone knows better, please contribute. It seemed logical to list them both under the parent park, under the "National Cemetery" header, as well as the list in the article: National Cemetery. — Eoghanacht ^talk 16:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I see. That makes sense. According to this, there are 14 cemeteries run by the NPS, so we are missing 2. Nationalparks 18:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Found the last two: Andersonville and Andrew Johnson National Cemeteries. — Eoghanacht ^talk 17:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Two New Units

The unit count is now 390: 389th unit 390th unit Nationalparks 17:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I set up a new stub for Carter G. Woodson Home National Historic Site, and reworked an existing article for "African Burial National Monument". By the way, Happy Birthday Yellowstone! — Eoghanacht ^talk 18:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I happened to look up the proclamation, and the proper name is African Burial Ground National Monument. [2] Someone seems to have made in error in an NPS announcement. [3]. — Eoghanacht ^talk 20:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured List Candidate

I have nominated this list for WP:FL. Please feel free to vote or comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of areas in the National Park System of the United States. Nationalparks 19:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on a comment, I have completely tablized the list. Nationalparks 20:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

All 390 have stubs!

All 390 official units now have stubs or more with the addition of Piscataway Park! Nationalparks 19:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Delaware

I doubt it will be considered a formal "unit" of the NP System, but with Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail the NPS now has at least a minimal presence in Delaware (also doubt they will own any property in DE related to the water trail). Last year Senator Carper introduced S.1627 (also Rep. Castle H.R.3866) to fund a study toward the creation of a possible "Delaware National Park." — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

International Parks

A handful of US national park system units comprise whole or parts of international parks. The titles are both honorific and functional, as the designation reflects a formal agreement to administer them jointly or co-operatively. In the case of St. Croix Island IHS, it is currently listed under National Historic Sites, although it is not one, and enjoys a unique designation within the US park system.

The other four parks would be double-listed, since they are partially comprised of a US unit or affiliated area. Listing them together, however, provides a useful snapshot of these elite areas, thereby highlighting their significance, and allowing the researcher to avoid sifting through the hundreds of other sites to find them. The argument could well be made that, since these sites are super-national, they could well lead off the entire list. Conversely, one could suggest that, since four of the five are listed elsewhere, this grouping has value as a list below National Parks, perhaps. It depends on whether you're an internationalist, I suppose.

And, depending on whether it carries any administrative meaning, one might consider including this bi-national World Heritage Site: Kluane (Yukon)/Wrangell-St. Elias (Alaska)/Glacier Bay (Alaska)/Tatshenshini-Alsek (British Columbia). The only other NPS international World Heritage Site is Waterton-Glacier, which is already on the list.

At a mimimum, I propose the following insertion:

International Parks

Name	Location
Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park (Waterton Lakes National Park and Glacier National Park)	Alberta/Montana
International Peace Garden (affiliated area)	North Dakota/Manitoba
Roosevelt Campobello International Park (affiliated area)	New Brunswick
Klondike Gold Rush International Historical Park (Klondike Gold Rush NHP and Chilkoot Trail NHS)	Alaska/British Columbia/Washington
Perry's Victory and International Peace Memorial	Ohio
St. Croix Island International Historic Site	Maine/New Brunswick

Yoho2001 09:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

We can't have a double listing, so this won't work. You could add a notation of the international status to the parens where it says affiliated area (like Glacier does already). Perhaps you could make a new list: List of United States / Canada International Parks or List of Canada / United States International Parks. Nationalparks 15:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are certainly options, Scott, though personally not as satisfying as seeing a neat table of super-national parks appear on this page. If you or others reconsider, feel free to cut and paste this table.

Meanwhile, St. Croix Island IHS presses one point. It's listed in the National Historic Sites table on the page, when technically it deserves its own. NPS lists accord it its own category, and do not put it under NHSs, or with Other Parks. Creating a table for "International Historic Site" is a logical remedy.

Yet having a table with only one entry seems a waste, when other parks are international too. That's why I suggest taking the table a step further and putting all the international parks into it, under "International Parks". Another one should be included: Perry's Victory and International Peace Memorial.

Yoho2001 06:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved Saint Croix Island International Historic Site to a new table. We already have a single entry table for Brices Cross Roads. I suggest we wait to build consensus before duplicating entries. Nationalparks 07:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Title misleading

When I see "List of Areas...," I presume at minimum that the article will give the land area of each park or other unit. For instance, List of Areas of Islands does just that, and has them in order largest to smallest.

This is just a list of names and founding dates. The term the National Park Sevice uses is 'units,' because nomenclature is at the whim of Congress. I propose that "List of Units in the National Park System of the United States" or "List of Founding Dates for Units in the National Park System of the United States" is less misleading for this article. Or, alternatively, add the areas to make it correct as is. Lamabillybob 03:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Grand Staircase Escalante?24.8.249.241 (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Managed by BLM, not by NPS. --Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

List of fees??

It'd be great to see a list of fees up here. NPS doesn't provide one. So now I have to go to each parks website to find out what the fees are. Makes the decision to buy a park pass or not quite difficult! watson (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Number of NPS Monuments

On the National Park Service discussion, there was a question to the number of NPS monuments. I've changed this article to reflect the number published by the NPS. It also happens to be the number of sites listed in the main article. That's 74, not 75 as originally noted. Chris Light (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

incomplete list of national monuments

The "Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument" is not on your list of national monuments, but you have a page that tells all about it. Wiki needs to add it to the list. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stannephi (talk • contribs) 16:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

That is a U.S. Bureau of Land Management park - not a National Park Service park. See List of National Monuments of the United States for a list of all national monuments under all park owners. Rmhermen (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Other NPS protected areas and administrative groups

How to edit this section? National Capital Parks is an official unit of the National Park System. National Capital Parks-East and National Mall and Memorial Parks are not. They are simply administrative units of the National Park Service that each manage some of the properties of the official unit, as well as other official units. To make the issue even more confusing, Rock Creek Park is both an official unit of the National Park System and an administrative unit of the National Park Service that manages Rock Creek Park and properties of the National Capital Parks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwengr (talk • contribs) 22:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Harriet Tubman UGRR NM

Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad NM was created in 2013 as an NPS unit. In 2014, parts of it were redesignated a NHP, but not all. The limited NPS lands which had been acquired were transferred to the new NHP, with additional lands authorized to accrue to the NHP. So where does this leave the National Monument? The 2014 legislation did not abolish it, and boundaries are still authorized. So does it revert to an 'authorized but not established' monument, and therefore not in the count? This list shows it under "Decommissioned" monuments, but I have seen no source for that, and NPS officials say the monument still legally exists. Elsewhere, on the List of National Monuments of the United States, this monument is listed under the Fish and Wildlife Service, not NPS. I have not seen sources which indicate a transfer from NPS to FWS. Yoho2001 (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Since writing the above, I have heard confirmation that the National Monument was never abolished, which means NPS lands that existed at the time the National Historical Park was created have a double designation--both NHP and NM. Most of the NM's authorized boundary included, and continues to include, Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge (Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS)), so it should always have been listed as a jointly administered NM, as indeed it still is. New properties which NPS is authorized to acquire will accrue only to the NHP, however. So there will be some parts of the park which are only a NHP, while others will be both a NHP and NM (NPS); and the bulk of the NM will be under FWS.

The end result is that Harriet Tubman UGRR should be listed here both as a NHP and a NM, for that is what legally exists, even if NPS doesn't count it that way for administrative expediency. Yoho2001 (talk) 08:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

David Berger NMem

David Berger National Memorial in Ohio has been listed as an affiliated unit of the park system, but is not on this list. One source says it had been erroneously listed by sources in the past (http://www.parkasaurus.com/?p=606#respond), yet a current NPS web page says it still is affiliated: http://www.nps.gov/dabe/learn/historyculture/david-berger-sculpture.htm It would be good to clarify this, and add it to the list if it's still in the NPS orbit. Yoho2001 (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If it's not listed in the documents in the NPS research desk (Site Designations & Recent Changes) then I don't think it can be classified as an affiliated unit. Those are the most authoritative and comprehensive lists published by the NPS for what constitutes a unit, and they don't contain the Berger Memorial. Ethelred unraed (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Those links appear to both be broken. Try these as replacements: (Site Designations & Recent Changes).

Under Site Designations, you're right about David Berger NMem not appearing. However, New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route *does* appear as an affiliated unit, and it is not one. (Legislation to extend the NPS partnership was not renewed. See note toward the bottom of this page: http://www.newjerseycoastalheritagetrail.com/). So I'm not sure we can fully trust this NPS list.

Meantime, this NPS page on David Berger NMem says "the sculpture is affiliated with the National Park Service." And another park source tells me David Berger is getting assistance from nearby Cuyahoga Valley National Park. It seems to me all this augurs for inclusion of this memorial as an affiliated unit. Yoho2001 (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Listing David Berger NMem remains an unresolved matter. National Geographic just listed it as one of 8 unsung sights in U.S. national parks, calling it "the smallest unit administered by the National Park System." There is an NPS website for this memorial, found here, and those wishing to contact the site are told to reach staff at the Jewish community centre for general visitor inquiries (including accessibility to the National Park Passport stamp), but to contact staff at Cuyahoga Valley NP for NPS-related issues (presumably interpretation and administration). Affiliated units have passport stamps. Those completely outside the system do not. Together, it's further evidence to support adding this as an affiliated unit. Yoho2001 (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Although the official NPS list does not include it, an NPS list ("Last Updated: 11/3/2014" though probably updated in April/May 2017 based on the title & 2nd paragraph) does include it as a "National Park Service Unit," while another NPS list (Last updated: June 17, 2016) includes a link to the national memorial designation acts from 1979–84 where it's included on page 3, and the current NPS online search includes it, and Mandel Jewish Community Center states "affiliated with the National Park Service." Sure seems to be an affiliated unit, and probably just an oversight that it's not in the NP Index listing. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Jefferson National Expansion Memorial NHS

I moved this unit from National Memorials to National Historic Sites to reflect its official designation. Despite having "Memorial" in its name, it's a NHS, based on the original legislation, and on subsequent NPS reference elsewhere; and also here. There has been no redesignation that I have found.

One editor reverted the edit, based on this list of NPS Site Designations. However, we know this source is not infallible. For examples: It lists First State NHP as being only in Delaware when it's also in Pennsylvania. It says Fort Scott NHS is in both Arkansas and Oklahoma, when there are no lands in Oklahoma. (There had been an intent to acquire Oklahoma land opposite the fort, and some maps were even printed to show it, but no land was ever acquired.) And it lists New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route as an affiliated unit, when it's not (legislation authorizing NPS participation expired). It also heads each page with "Units & Related Areas & Related Areas", so we know it is not gospel.

It's quite possible the Site Designations source lists JNEM as a memorial because "memorial" is in its name, and that a memorial was authorized to be constructed at this NHS. Somewhat similarly, Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial is a National Military Park and not a National Memorial, though "memorial" is in its name. I will look for discussion on this, including thoughts from Ethelred unraed, but believe there is sufficient documentation to put JNEM in the NHS category. Yoho2001 (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Yoho2001. I agree that this one is a bit convoluted. Here is the history as I can see it.

In 1935, President Roosevelt issued the following executive order relying upon the authority of the Historic Sites Act of 1935. The executive order called for, "ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FOR THE ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF A HISTORIC SITE TO BE KNOWN AS THE JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL." Note two things: first, that the Historic Sites Act does not actually give the president the authority to designate a National Historic Site, only to take various efforts to preserve historic sites (and it's commonly understood that the only NPS designation a president can make is the designation of a National Monument under the authority of the Antiquities Act); and second, that the executive order issued by the president does not actually designate Jefferson National Expansion as a "National Historic Site," but only as "a historic site." The piece of legislation you cited is not the "original legislation" for the memorial, but was rather the authorizing legislation for the construction of the Gateway Arch. The legislation names the site as the "Jefferson National Expansion Memorial National Historic Site," but it calls for the construction of a "national memorial." I believe it is on the basis of that authorization that the NPS considers the unit to be a National Memorial. Subsequent legislation which was passed into law did not include "National Historic Site" in the unit's name. Having visited the site, I can also confirm that nowhere onsite is its name given as "Jefferson National Expansion Memorial National Historic Site" so that seems like an error in that piece of legislation.

Finally, the Red Book, which is an authoritative list of the NPS's units and holdings (and was considered the agency's "official index," states the following about the unit: "The title national memorial is most often used for areas that are primarily commemorative. They need not be sites or structures historically associated with their subjects. For example, the home of Abraham Lincoln in Springfield, Ill., is a national historic site, but the Lincoln Memorial in the District of Columbia is a national memorial. Several areas whose titles do not include the words “national memorial” are nevertheless classified as memorials. These are Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, Korean War Veterans Memorial, Lincoln Memorial, Lyndon Baines Johnson Memorial Grove, Theodore Roosevelt Island, Thomas Jefferson Memorial, Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Washington Monument, and World War II Memorial in the District of Columbia; Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in Missouri; Perry’s Victory in Ohio; and Arlington House in Virginia." On that basis, I would consider it a National Memorial, not a National Historic Site. But definitely I would like to hear from other editors as well on their thoughts. Ethelred unraed (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to include the History and Definition of the Names of Historical Units within the National Park System produced by the NPS's Office of Cultural Resources, which is a well researched piece that also includes Jefferson National Expansion as a National Memorial and not a National Historic Site. Ethelred unraed (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I already replied to your comment at Talk:List of National Memorials of the United States. I would rather use the NPS's current designation rather than our original research about what the authorizing law was called. This is another law that only uses the common name. Your socialstudies.school link is definitely not an RS, and there's nothing else officially calling it an NHS besides the linked 1984 book. I'm not sure what your point is about the battlefields: NMP appears in all the sources, not as you've pipe-linked it. Reywas92^Talk 22:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Reywas92. The source you cite identifies JNEM as a NHS. See "Related Bills (2)" toward the bottom, linking to H.R. 2107, which uses the NHS designation. This would support a change. Regarding Fred-Spots, I mentioned it as an example of a park which has "Memorial" in its name, like JNEM, but which is also officially not a National Memorial.

Thanks, Ethelred unraed. The Brown administrative history you cite (containing FDR's executive order) names JNEM a NHS in its title and elsewhere, including on the page you link to. Somewhere in my archives, I still have the NPS brochure which calls JNEM a NHS, a precursor to the unigrid style used today. We know that the site was designated under the Historic Sites Act of 1935, and the executive order describes it as a "historic site". Nowhere in the order is "national memorial" mentioned. FDR says the site is "to be known as Jefferson National Expansion Memorial". For one, that's not the same as "National Memorial", and, for two, being known as something is not the same as a designation. The Washington Monument is known as a monument but it is not a national monument, rather it's a national memorial. This discussion prompted me to contact JNEM, and it says: "In spite of the name, Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, the park has never been proclaimed a national memorial." If it's not a National Memorial and it's not a NHS, as you both say, what is it? I would shy away from naming a unique category of park—National Expansion Memorial—and list it in keeping with what original sources call it, a NHS.

Other sources indicate the Secretary of the Interior is the one who designated the site, given his new authority under the Historic Sites Act in 1935. Perhaps there is text to shed more light on this. From what I've seen, putting it in the National Historic Site category is supported, while calling it a National Memorial is dubious, and has been done out of convenience. Yoho2001 (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yoho2001, as far as H.R. 2107 goes, that resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives but never became law. As for the executive order, as stated previously, the Historic Sites Act does not give the president the authority to designate a National Historic Site, and the executive order Roosevelt issued does not call it a "National Historic Site." As for your source at JNEM: if you have a contact at Jefferson National Expansion Memorial that is saying the park is not a National Memorial, my recommendation would be to ask them to contact the NPS to have the agency's classification documents changed, because those all say explicitly that it is. Otherwise that's not something we can provide a citation for.

The Brown administrative history refers to the site as a National Memorial repeatedly. See here where it states, "[Superintendent Parker] told Colonel I.A. Long, president of the association, that the land involved was part of a national memorial, and that the National Park Service had an obligation..." See here where it states, "[National Park Service Director] Drury pointed out that reducing the memorial's size probably would result in the abandonment of Saarinen's plans. Any revision would probably produce a design resulting in an unsatisfactory national memorial." And see here, where it states, " The stage was thus set for drafting an executive order authorizing the establishment of a national memorial in St. Louis." It also states, "Other than drafting a new executive order, an appeal to Congress seemed the obvious recourse. A bill could approve the area as a site for a national memorial as recommended by the commission." And in fact, that is exactly what the congressional legislation did. Setting aside the name, the legislation states that "There is authorized to be constructed [...] an appropriate national memorial..."

My vote is still for going with the NPS's current classifications. The Red Book and the designations document are in agreement about its status. One can say that it is dubious for the agency to consider the unit a National Memorial, but it is the agency which manages the site, and I think it would be presumptuous for us to assume we know better what it is than they do. Ethelred unraed (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Several other sites were never proclaimed a "National Memorial" either, as mentioned on the nomenclature page and above, so the person you contacted there is still right, but that doesn't mean it, like others that don't fit a classification verbatim, would be something else. The related bill in the law link also never passed so it's not canon, and historically a lot of sites changed names or have been inconsistently referenced by congress; the NPS's designations are mostly not legal categories/definitions. I agree with Ethelred and still want to go with the NPS's current designations for now; even if calling it a NMEM is dubious, they're the authoritative source. Reywas92^Talk 21:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Fort Donelson

Why is this not included as a former National Military Park, which it is? 2600:1004:B164:A0E0:1C51:7F69:F7D2:7404 (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of areas in the United States National Park System. 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/20141013223515/http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020303292_winglukexml.html to http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020303292_winglukexml.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Units and Northern Mariana Islands

On this page and others, the statement is made that "National Park System units are found in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories of Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico." From the research I've done, however, the American Memorial Park in the Northern Mariana Islands is an affiliated area, not an official unit of the NPS. That would mean that the statement is factually incorrect, that UNITS are not found in all places on that list, but units and affiliated areas are.

Should the statement read, "National Park System units and affiliated areas are found in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories of Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico"? Or should there be some kind of disclaimer added after NMI to show that it does not contain an official unit? Perhaps NMI should be removed altogether.

I thought it prudent to discuss this before making changes as this could affect more than just this page.--Hearnesj (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the edit to make it factually correct. Hopefully it meets with approval. Hearnesj (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit war over 19 vs 21 preserves

I haven't followed the arguments, but noticed there is a potential edit war going on here and wanted to move it to the talk page. User:Reywas92 and User:Sbb618, would you both be able to explain your position here, and as a third independent party, I can help arbitrate and form a consensus if needed? Thanks. Cstanford.math (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Your changes mostly worked, but since we have a separate article for the official units, I think it's okay to list the two that are not in this table as well. Two of the the 21 national preserves listed at National preserve are not separate official units like the rest so the NPS doesn't duplicate them on their list of units, but because their authorizing legislation [4] and [5] still clearly designates them as such, and their respective NPS sites use the terminology at [6] and [7] I think they should be listed in the table or at the least included in the count in the section of this list. Functionally there is no difference whatsoever, just whether Congress described them as being established as units or not. Reywas92^Talk 16:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Reywas92 Thanks for posting here. I agree about functionally no different and my preference would be a table that is more inclusive, but qualifies the non-unit entries, e.g. add "(non-unit)" after their name, similarly to how the affiliated areas are listed. That being said, my primary concern would be that the article is self-consistent throughout (and to preserve its designation as a featured list). If I'm understanding correctly the tables in other sections, non-units are not listed. Cstanford.math (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

We do list non-units in the Monument, Historic Site, Memorial, Reserve, Parkway, Trails, and Other sections, but including such notes in the table definitely makes the most sense, good idea. Most of those are affiliated areas, but some parkways are double-listed in that section and under their management unit in Other; I don't think there's anything else comparable to these though. It's been a very long time since this became an FL so I do think it could use some broader improvements – eventually I want to make it the lead article of a featured topic. That'll include slightly longer intro blurbs for each section and clearer treatment of areas and subareas across sections.

As much as I love keeping track of all the areas and where I've visited myself, reading so much legislation shows how inconsistent Congress is at creating things, and it's a more recent invention to call them "units". The one that got me recently (and I literally wrote them an email and then had a nice phone call with someone about it) is that Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail is counted as a unit even though it's just a few short hiking trails that are effectively just part of the Natchez Trace Parkway. Then the Appalachian Trail and Potomac Heritage Trail are also units, but the legislation creating them doens't say so and is no different at all from all the other non-unit trails. There's actually a bill in Congress that I think has passed as part of a larger one that does literally nothing except declare Ice Age National Scenic Trail a unit because they think that'll bring more attention to it. The current status makes sense though since it's just overseen by NPS but actually managed by local partners. I can ramble more but thanks for both of your interest. Reywas92^Talk 17:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Cool, in that case, I am totally on board with including them with a (non-unit) note! If you want to edit go ahead.

Haha, agreed --- my limited experience getting interested in the NPS system has been similar. A lot of these designations aren't consistent with each other. I sort of wish there were some independent party (other than Congress) to clean up the mess and merge some of the different designations, like all the different military/battlefield variants, the "and Preserve" issues, the man-made sites designated as parks and vice versa, and the random exceptions to a rule that these articles always have to explicitly call out, like Grand Canyon-Parashant. And I don't see the point of just having one "International historic site" if there aren't going to be others, though I suppose that's a less egregious problem than many of the other inconsistencies. Cstanford.math (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Number of national historic sites (affiliated areas)

@Reywas92:, assuming you are right that Aleutian World War II National Historic Area and Historic Camden Revolutionary War Site are no longer affiliated areas, can we get those pages updated as well, and can we also update National Historic Site (United States), which still lists 85 not 83?

Also, what authoritative source are you using, is there a website published by the NPS? Maybe we should say more about the source for the info in the article. Cstanford.math (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Well they are still affiliated areas, but not with the designation of "national historic site". Maybe they can go in the "Other" section of this list but I'm open to them staying in that section too. I updated the NHS article, didn't notice the count was on it twice in my first update. As I work on the NHS list, I may add them back there with a disclaimer on designations, not sure the best way to do it yet. Reywas92^Talk 03:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks -- but now the NHS page has 84, and this page has 83. What gives? If the two pages are using different counting criteria, I think that needs to be explicitly noted and exceptions listed by name. Cstanford.math (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The 84th is Grey Towers, with is Forest Service, which is noted on both places. Reywas92^Talk 14:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Reywas92 By the way, I am fine with the number being 84 instead of 83, if we update it here too. It is very important for the quality of these articles that the count is consistent, and where it is not possible to be consistent, it is explicitly clarified why. Issues surrounding inconsistent numbering lead to pretty serious reader confusion, as we and others have discussed here before. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realize that was you with the changed name! I reworded the whole thing here. Reywas92^Talk 14:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Right, no worries. Thanks for updating it! Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

D.C.

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but if people want to change "the District of Columbia" here to "Washington, DC," we need to make sure we're consistent throughout all of Wikipedia's NPS articles. The phrase "the District of Columbia" is used on several NPS pages, and the description of the NPS is pretty much word for word the same from page to page. OneEarDrummer (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Went ahead and returned it to DC to be consistent with other NPS pages. OneEarDrummer (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)