List of areas in the United States National Park System is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
List milestones Date Process Result June 24, 2006 Featured list candidate Promoted May 8, 2007 Featured topic candidate Not promoted Current Status: Featured list

Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated FA-Class)
	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

WikiProject Lists	(Rated FL-Class, Mid-importance)	ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Lists portal v • d • e This page is part of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.  FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	WikiProject Protected areas	Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:Messagebox protected areasProtected areas articles
v • d • e This article is part of WikiProject Protected Areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.

List of areas in the United States National Park System is part of the National Park Service series, a former featured topic candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the topic for featured topic status.

Contents 1 Ampersands 2 To change or not to change 3 Page Move 4 Disbanded parks 5 The forgotten parks 6 A few general comments on list format 7 Cemeteries 8 Two New Units 9 Featured List Candidate 10 All 390 have stubs! 11 Delaware 12 International Parks 12.1 International Parks 13 Title misleading 14 List of fees?? 15 Number of NPS Monuments

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)