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

message: 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)
thread_title: To change or not to change

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I found a mention of it on . —ScouterSig 15:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disbanded parks 

message: 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)
thread_title: The forgotten parks

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

message: The unit count is now 390:
389th unit
390th unit
Nationalparks 17:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: FYI, I happened to look up the proclamation, and the proper name is African Burial Ground National Monument.  Someone seems to have made in error in an NPS announcement. . — Eoghanacht talk 20:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two New Units 

message: 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)
replies: text: Based on a comment, I have completely tablized the list. Nationalparks 20:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured List Candidate 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Delaware 

message: 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)
replies: text: Managed by BLM, not by NPS. --Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Title misleading

message: 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)
thread_title:  List of fees?? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Number of NPS Monuments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  incomplete list of national monuments 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other NPS protected areas and administrative groups 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fort Donelson 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Units and Northern Mariana Islands 

message: , 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)
replies: text: 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. Reywas92Talk 03:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: The 84th is Grey Towers, with is Forest Service, which is noted on both places. Reywas92Talk 14:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I didn't realize that was you with the changed name! I reworded the whole thing here. Reywas92Talk 14:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, no worries. Thanks for updating it! Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of national historic sites (affiliated areas) 

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