text:
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?
 * &amp;
 * [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 . —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 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: 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.)
 * Benjamin Franklin National Memorial

3) For depenent park areas, either remove from the list entirely, or show them indented under the parent park. An extreme examle: 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.
 * Rock Creek Park
 * Battleground National Cemetery
 * Meridian Hill Park
 * The Old Stone House
 * Peirce Mill
 * Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway

— 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 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

 * Battleground National Cemetery

 * Meridian Hill Park

 * The Old Stone House

 * Peirce Mill

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.
 * Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway
 * 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. Someone seems to have made in error in an NPS announcement. . —  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 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
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.

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 and  still clearly designates them as such, and their respective NPS sites use the terminology at  and  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. Reywas92Talk 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. Reywas92Talk 17:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. Reywas92Talk 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)
 * 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)
, 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. Reywas92Talk 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. Reywas92Talk 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. Reywas92Talk 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)


text:
Linear motor

A linear motor is an electric motor that has had its stator and rotor "unrolled", thus, instead of producing a torque (rotation), it produces a linear force along its length. However, linear motors are not necessarily straight. Characteristically, a linear motor's active section has ends, whereas more conventional motors are arranged as a continuous loop.

A typical mode of operation is as a Lorentz-type actuator, in which the applied force is linearly proportional to the current and the magnetic field $$(\vec F = I \vec L \times \vec B)$$.

Linear motors are most commonly found in high accuracy engineering applications.

Many designs have been put forward for linear motors, falling into two major categories, low-acceleration and high-acceleration linear motors. Low-acceleration linear motors are suitable for maglev trains and other ground-based transportation applications. High-acceleration linear motors are normally rather short, and are designed to accelerate an object to a very high speed; for example, see the coilgun.

High-acceleration linear motors are typically used in studies of hypervelocity collisions, as weapons, or as mass drivers for spacecraft propulsion. They are usually of the AC linear induction motor (LIM) design with an active three-phase winding on one side of the air-gap and a passive conductor plate on the other side. However, the direct current homopolar linear motor railgun is another high acceleration linear motor design. The low-acceleration, high speed and high power motors are usually of the linear synchronous motor (LSM) design, with an active winding on one side of the air-gap and an array of alternate-pole magnets on the other side. These magnets can be permanent magnets or electromagnets. The motor for the Shanghai maglev train, for instance, is an LSM.

Brushless
Brushless linear motors are members of the Synchronous motor family. They are typically used in standard linear stages or integrated into custom, high performance positioning systems. Invented in the late 1980s by Anwar Chitayat at Anorad Corporation, now Rockwell Automation, and helped improve the throughput and quality of industrial manufacturing processes.

Brush
Brush (electric) linear motors were used in industrial automation applications prior to the invention of Brushless linear motors. Compared with three phase Brushless motors, which are typically being used today, brush motors operate on a single phase. Brush linear motors have a lower cost since they do not need moving cables or three phase servo drives. However, they require higher maintenance since their brushes wear out.

Synchronous
In this design the rate of movement of the magnetic field is controlled, usually electronically, to track the motion of the rotor. For cost reasons synchronous linear motors rarely use commutators, so the rotor often contains permanent magnets, or soft iron. Examples include coilguns and the motors used on some maglev systems, as well as many other linear motors. In high precision industrial automation linear motors are typically configured with a magnet stator and a moving coil. A Hall effect sensor is attached to the rotor to track the magnetic flux of the stator. The electric current is typically provided from a stationary servo drive to the moving coil by a moving cable inside a cable carrier.

Induction

In this design, the force is produced by a moving linear magnetic field acting on conductors in the field. Any conductor, be it a loop, a coil or simply a piece of plate metal, that is placed in this field will have eddy currents induced in it thus creating an opposing magnetic field, in accordance with Lenz's law. The two opposing fields will repel each other, thus creating motion as the magnetic field sweeps through the metal.

Homopolar

In this design a large current is passed through a metal sabot across sliding contacts that are fed by two rails. The magnetic field this generates causes the metal to be projected along the rails.

Tubular
Efficient and compact design applicable to the replacement of pneumatic cylinders.

Piezoelectric

Piezoelectric drive is often used to drive small linear motors.

Low acceleration
The history of linear electric motors can be traced back at least as far as the 1840s, to the work of Charles Wheatstone at King's College London, but Wheatstone's model was too inefficient to be practical. A feasible linear induction motor is described in (1905 - inventor Alfred Zehden of Frankfurt-am-Main), for driving trains or lifts. The German engineer Hermann Kemper built a working model in 1935. In the late 1940s, Dr. Eric Laithwaite of Manchester University, later Professor of Heavy Electrical Engineering at Imperial College in London developed the first full-size working model.

In a single sided version the magnetic repulsion forces the conductor away from the stator, levitating it, and carrying it along in the direction of the moving magnetic field. He called the later versions of it magnetic river. The technologies would later be applied, in the 1984, Air-Rail Link shuttle, between Birmingham's airport and an adjacent train station.

Because of these properties, linear motors are often used in maglev propulsion, as in the Japanese Linimo magnetic levitation train line near Nagoya. However, linear motors have been used independently of magnetic levitation, as in the Bombardier Innovia Metro systems worldwide and a number of modern Japanese subways, including Tokyo's Toei Ōedo Line.

Similar technology is also used in some roller coasters with modifications but, at present, is still impractical on street running trams, although this, in theory, could be done by burying it in a slotted conduit.

Outside of public transportation, vertical linear motors have been proposed as lifting mechanisms in deep mines, and the use of linear motors is growing in motion control applications. They are also often used on sliding doors, such as those of low floor trams such as the Alstom Citadis and the Socimi Eurotram. Dual axis linear motors also exist. These specialized devices have been used to provide direct X-Y motion for precision laser cutting of cloth and sheet metal, automated drafting, and cable forming. Most linear motors in use are LIM (linear induction motor), or LSM (linear synchronous motor). Linear DC motors are not used due to their higher cost and linear SRM suffers from poor thrust. So for long runs in traction LIM is mostly preferred and for short runs LSM is mostly preferred.

High acceleration
High-acceleration linear motors have been suggested for a number of uses. They have been considered for use as weapons, since current armour-piercing ammunition tends to consist of small rounds with very high kinetic energy, for which just such motors are suitable. Many amusement park launched roller coasters now use linear induction motors to propel the train at a high speed, as an alternative to using a lift hill.

The United States Navy is also using linear induction motors in the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System that will replace traditional steam catapults on future aircraft carriers. They have also been suggested for use in spacecraft propulsion. In this context they are usually called mass drivers. The simplest way to use mass drivers for spacecraft propulsion would be to build a large mass driver that can accelerate cargo up to escape velocity, though RLV launch assist like StarTram to low Earth orbit has also been investigated.

High-acceleration linear motors are difficult to design for a number of reasons. They require large amounts of energy in very short periods of time. One rocket launcher design calls for 300 GJ for each launch in the space of less than a second. Normal electrical generators are not designed for this kind of load, but short-term electrical energy storage methods can be used. Capacitors are bulky and expensive but can supply large amounts of energy quickly. Homopolar generators can be used to convert the kinetic energy of a flywheel into electric energy very rapidly. High-acceleration linear motors also require very strong magnetic fields; in fact, the magnetic fields are often too strong to permit the use of superconductors. However, with careful design, this need not be a major problem.

Two different basic designs have been invented for high-acceleration linear motors: railguns and coilguns.

Usage
Linear motors are commonly used for actuating high performance industrial automation equipment. Their advantage, unlike any other commonly used actuator, such as a ball screw, timing belt, or rack and pinion, is that they provide any combination of high precision, high velocity, high force and long travel.

Linear motors are widely used. One of the major uses of linear motors is for propelling the shuttle in looms.

Linear motors have been used for sliding doors and various similar actuators. They have been used for baggage handling and even large-scale bulk materials transport.

Linear motors are sometimes used to create rotary motion. For example, they have been used at observatories to deal with the large radius of curvature.

Linear motors may also be used as an alternative to conventional chain-run lift hills for roller coasters. The coaster Maverick at Cedar Point uses one such linear motor in place of a chain lift.

A linear motor has been used to accelerate cars for crash tests.

Industrial automation
The combination of high precision, high velocity, high force, and long travel makes brushless linear motors attractive for driving industrial automations equipment. They serve industries and applications such as semiconductor steppers, electronics surface-mount technology, automotive cartesian coordinate robots, aerospace chemical milling, optics electron microscope, healthcare laboratory automation, food and beverage pick and place.

Machine tools
Synchronous linear motor actuators, used in machine tools, provide high force, high velocity, high precision and high dynamic stiffness, resulting in high smoothness of motion and low settling time. They may reach velocities of 2 m/s and micron-level accuracies, with short cycle times and a smooth surface finish.

Conventional rails
All of the following applications are in rapid transit and have the active part of the motor in the cars.

Bombardier Innovia Metro
Originally developed in the late 1970s by UTDC in Canada as the Intermediate Capacity Transit System (ICTS). A test track was constructed in Millhaven, Ontario, for extensive testing of prototype cars, after which three lines were constructed: ICTS was sold to Bombardier Transportation in 1991 and later known as Advanced Rapid Transit (ART) before adopting its current branding in 2011. Since then, several more installations have been made: All Innovia Metro systems use third rail electrification.
 * Line 3 Scarborough in Toronto (opened 1985; closed 2023)
 * Expo Line of the Vancouver SkyTrain (opened 1985 and extended in 1994)
 * Detroit People Mover in Detroit (opened 1987)
 * Kelana Jaya Line in Kuala Lumpur (opened 1998 and extended in 2016)
 * Millennium Line of the Vancouver SkyTrain (opened 2002 and extended in 2016)
 * AirTrain JFK in New York (opened 2003)
 * Airport Express (Beijing Subway) (opened 2008)
 * Everline in Yongin, South Korea (opened 2013)

Japanese Linear Metro
One of the biggest challenges faced by Japanese railway engineers in the 1970s to the 1980s was the ever increasing construction costs of subways. In response, the Japan Subway Association began studying on the feasibility of the "mini-metro" for meeting urban traffic demand in 1979. In 1981, the Japan Railway Engineering Association studied on the use of linear induction motors for such small-profile subways and by 1984 was investigating on the practical applications of linear motors for urban rail with the Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. In 1988, a successful demonstration was made with the Limtrain at Saitama and influenced the eventual adoption of the linear motor for the Nagahori Tsurumi-ryokuchi Line in Osaka and Toei Line 12 (present-day Toei Oedo Line) in Tokyo.

To date, the following subway lines in Japan use linear motors and use overhead lines for power collection:
 * Two Osaka Metro lines in Osaka:
 * Nagahori Tsurumi-ryokuchi Line (opened 1990)
 * Imazatosuji Line (opened 2006)
 * Toei Ōedo Line in Tokyo (opened 2000)
 * Kaigan Line of the Kobe Municipal Subway (opened 2001)
 * Nanakuma Line of the Fukuoka City Subway (opened 2005)
 * Yokohama Municipal Subway Green Line (opened 2008)
 * Sendai Subway Tōzai Line (opened 2015)

In addition, Kawasaki Heavy Industries has also exported the Linear Metro to the Guangzhou Metro in China; all of the Linear Metro lines in Guangzhou use third rail electrification:
 * Line 4 (opened 2005)
 * Line 5 (opened 2009).
 * Line 6 (opened 2013)

Monorail

 * There is at least one known monorail system which is not magnetically levitated, but nonetheless uses linear motors. This is the Moscow Monorail. Originally, traditional motors and wheels were to be used. However, it was discovered during test runs that the proposed motors and wheels would fail to provide adequate traction under some conditions, for example, when ice appeared on the rail. Hence, wheels are still used, but the trains use linear motors to accelerate and slow down. This is possibly the only use of such a combination, due to the lack of such requirements for other train systems.
 * The TELMAGV is a prototype of a monorail system that is also not magnetically levitated but uses linear motors.

Magnetic levitation

 * High-speed trains:
 * Transrapid: first commercial use in Shanghai (opened in 2004)
 * SCMaglev, under construction in Japan (fastest train in the world, planned to open by 2027)
 * Rapid transit:
 * Birmingham Airport, UK (opened 1984, closed 1995)
 * M-Bahn in Berlin, Germany (opened in 1989, closed in 1991)
 * Daejeon EXPO, Korea (ran only 1993)
 * HSST: Linimo line in Aichi Prefecture, Japan (opened 2005)
 * Incheon Airport Maglev (opened July 2014)
 * Changsha Maglev Express (opened 2016)
 * S1 line of Beijing Subway (opened 2017)

Amusement rides
There are many roller coasters throughout the world that use LIMs to accelerate the ride vehicles. The first being Flight of Fear at Kings Island and Kings Dominion, both opening in 1996. Battlestar Galactica: Human VS Cylon & Revenge of the Mummy at Universal Studios Singapore opened in 2010. They both use LIMs to accelerate from certain point in the rides.

Revenge of the Mummy also located at Universal Studios Hollywood and Universal Studios Florida. The Incredible Hulk Coaster and VelociCoaster at Universal Islands of Adventure also use linear motors. At Walt Disney World, Rock 'n' Roller Coaster Starring Aerosmith at Disney's Hollywood Studios and Guardians of the Galaxy: Cosmic Rewind at Epcot both use LSM to launch their ride vehicles into their indoor ride enclosures.

In 2023 a hydraulic launch roller coaster, Top Thrill Dragster at Cedar Point in Ohio, USA, was renovated and the hydraulic launch replaced with a weaker multi-launch system using LSM, that creates less g-force.

Aircraft launching

 * Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System

Proposed and research

 * Launch loop – A proposed system for launching vehicles into space using a linear motor powered loop
 * StarTram – Concept for a linear motor on extreme scale
 * Tether cable catapult system
 * Aérotrain S44 – A suburban commuter hovertrain prototype
 * Research Test Vehicle 31 – A hovercraft-type vehicle guided by a track
 * Hyperloop – a conceptual high-speed transportation system put forward by entrepreneur Elon Musk
 * Elevator
 * Lift
 * Magway - a UK freight delivery system under research and development that aims to deliver goods in pods via 90 cm diameter pipework under and over ground.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Linear motor


text:
State Council of the People's Republic of China

The State Council of the People's Republic of China, also known as the Central People's Government, is the chief administrative authority and the national cabinet of China. It is constitutionally the highest administrative organ of the country and the executive organ of the National People's Congress, the highest organ of state power. It is composed of the premier, vice premiers, state councilors, ministers of ministries, directors of committees, the auditor general, and the secretary-general.

The premier is responsible for the State Council and exercises overall leadership of its work. The secretary-general of the State Council, under the leadership of the premier, is responsible for handling the daily work of the State Council and heads the General Office of the State Council. The executive meeting of the State Council, consisting of the premier, vice premiers, state councillors and the secretary-general, meets two to three times a month, while the plenary session, consisting of all members of the State Council, meets every six months.

The State Council directly oversees provincial-level People's Governments, and in practice maintains membership with top levels of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The State Council is legally required to implement the policies of the CCP. Aside from a few, members of the State Council are also members of the CCP's Central Committee.

Organization
The State Council is described by the Chinese constitution as the executive organ of the National People's Congress (NPC), as well as the "highest state administrative organ". Constitutionally, the main functions of the State Council are to formulate administrative measures, issue decisions and orders, and monitor their implementation; draft legislative bills for submission to the NPC or its Standing Committee; and prepare the economic plan and the state budget for deliberation and approval by the NPC. The State Council has flexibility in decision-making, especially with regard to economic matters, but the Politburo has ultimate authority.

In 2024, during the second session of the 14th National People's Congress, the Organic Law of the State Council was amended to mandate the CCP Central Committee's leadership over the State Council. The amended law also stipulates the State Council must follow the CCP's ideology and policies.

Composition
The State Council is composed of the premier, several vice premiers, several state councillors, ministers of ministries, directors of committees, the auditor general, and the secretary-general. The premier leads the State Council and is appointed by the NPC upon the nomination by the president, though in practice the premier is chosen within the CCP leadership, including the Politburo Standing Committee. The vice premiers (one executive and generally three others), state councillors, and a secretary-general (who normally also serves as a state councillor) all assist the premier.

Each vice premier oversees certain areas of administration in support of the premier. In practice, the vice premiers and State Councillors assume responsibility for one or more sectors or issues, and remain in contact with the various bodies responsible for policy related to that area. This allows the Standing Committee to oversee a wide range of government functions. Each State Councillor performs duties as designated by the Premier. The secretary-general heads the General Office which handles the day-to-day work of the State Council.

The State Council includes 26 constituent departments, and oversees the province-level governments throughout China. Each ministry supervises one sector. Commissions outrank ministries and set policies for and coordinate the related activities of different administrative organs. Offices deal with matters of ongoing concern. The establishment, dissolution, or merger of the constituent departments are proposed by the premier and decided by the NPC or its Standing Committee. Bureaus and administrations rank below ministries. In addition to the ministries, there are 38 centrally administered government organizations that report directly to the state council. The heads of these organizations attend full meetings of the state committee on an irregular basis.

The State Council controls the Ministry for National Defense but does not control the People's Liberation Army, which is instead controlled by the Central Military Commission (CMC). The State Council previously had joint command over the People's Armed Police (PAP) together with the CMC, principally through the Ministry of Public Security, though 2018 reforms placed the PAP solely under CMC command.

Meetings
The plenary session of the State Council meets every six months, composed of all members of the State Council. Between meetings it is guided by a Executive Meeting of the State Council which is held two to three times a month, and can be called at the discretion of the premier. The Executive Meeting is composed of the premier, vice premiers, state councilors, and the secretary-general.

Plenary Meeting
The Plenary Meeting of the State Council is hosted by the Premier, joined by Vice Premiers, State Councillors, Ministers in charge of Ministries and Commissions, the Governor of the People's Bank, the Auditor-General, and the Secretary-General. It usually runs bi-annually and when necessary, non-members can be invited to participate.


text:
Talk:Lubricant

Comment
Describing the invention of ball bearings as "revolutionary" seems a bit ridiculous, but I can't think of a better term. --user:Heron

Hanging Sentence
In the section named "Keep moving parts apart", there is an incomplete sentence:

"This is termed hydrodynamic lubrication. In cases of high surface pressures or temperatures the fluid film is much thinner and some of the forces are transmitted between the surfaces through"

Superlubricity?
Someone needs to mention Superlubricity. Jawed 04:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Russian band == There is also a Russian band called Lube (or Lubeh). Should this be mentioned? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 2 July 2005 16:29 (UTC) I don't think that really interesting stuff for none USR people. I think it is. They have a really kick-ass song that is usually passed as "Rammstein – Juden Hasst". Even though Rammstein has nothing to do with it. --82.79.168.47 10:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

If you think it should be mentioned it should be dealt with like a redirect, personally I disagree. Darkwraith 19:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Lubricants as pollutants
"In developed nations, lubricants contribute to nearly 1/4 of total pollution released to environment." That can't be right. We need a source or clarification of that statment.

Carax 16:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Grease isn't a liquid ?
It looks like one to me, at least at high temps. StuRat 05:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Like many materials, grease melts when hot and freezes when cold. But at room temperature grease is a thixotropic power-law fluid.  See: Grease (lubricant).  —Ryanrs 12:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag
I've put a cleanup tag on the article. It particularly refers to the intoductory section, which needs a complete rewrite as it contains several errors.

The lubricant may form a dispersion, disperses some wear products originating from the contacting surfaces, but does not dissolve much of them, although it might dissolve some.

Vaseline is cited as a tyical petroleum based lubricant. It is stated, that it dissolves petroleum products: rubber is a natural product, comes from the rubber tree. Petroleum based lubricants are designed such that their interaction with rubber/plastic seals is minimal.

What do we mean by a water based lubricant? These are cited as dissolving dirt: what dirt? inorganic contaminants, such as abrasive atmospheric dust, mainly silicates and aluminates do not dissolve in water.

Lubricants do not necessarily interact chemically with the contacting surfaces: in hydrodynamic lubrication the viscosity of the lubricant is capable of keeping the moving surfaces apart.

The statement "The lubricant must be replaced when it has dissolved to saturation" does not make sense. As very little solution takes place there is no saturation: Lubricating oils are replaced when there are too much abrasive contaminants in them, or as in the case of motor oils when the oil, through oxidation looses its ability to lubricate, because its Viscosity Index has dropped significantly and some of its components have partially dehydrogenated/oxidised and created coke particles which abrade instead of lubricating.

The last sentence does not appear to make much sense to me either. LouisBB (talk) 05:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The reference section is a total disaster. Who put those in there, and what part of the article do they relate to? They are numbered like footnotes, but I can't find what they relate to. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 14:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

LUBRICANTS DEFINITION
Lubricants are supposed to help in the reduction of friction between particles during compression and between the compressed tablet and die wall during the ejection cycle.Lubricants also increase the density of particle bed before compression and equalise the is distribution in the compressed tablets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.249.219 (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Heat Capacity
Should Heat Capacity be added to the list of properties of a lubricant? 194.176.105.139 (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what?
First, what is "horological lubricant"? Also, I would like to know why "personal lubricant" is under the heading "other motors"...actually, I don't want to know. 74.98.216.253 (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

No mention of cubing?
Yes, seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:119F:21D:7900:ED5E:B45:24A2:7F89 (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lubricant. 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/20071015175730/http://whnet.com/4x4/oil.html to http://www.whnet.com/4x4/oil.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) 22:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Addition
Hello, my name is Kim, and I work at MSL, a PR agency representing paints and performance coatings company Akzo Nobel. I am working closely with Akzo Nobel scientists and experts in the field to clarify the benefits and uses of oil additives within the chemistry and technology communities, and I would like to propose an addition to this page:

Under the “Additives” section, add the following sentence at the end of the “Friction Modifiers” (last) line item:

These agents are often fatty amine Fatty_amine organic friction modifiers, which can be easily tailored for specific needs. Synergistic benefits are seen when used in combination with anti-wear additives such as zinc dithiophosphate Zinc_dithiophosphate.

Kim at MSL (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

 * This seems like a reasonable addition to the article to me. I've added a very slightly modified version to the article.  Gnome de plume (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Added material deleted
I'm sorry but I'm removing the text added by, the information itself and the reference supplied by the COI editor Kim at MSL are both promotional, as they describe proprietary chemicals manufactured by AzkoNobel, the client of the COI editor's PR company. The placement of product information in Wikipedia articles is not allowed, per WP:PLUG.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   05:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your feedback on proposed additions. While Akzo Nobel does manufacture the proprietary chemicals referenced, it is important to note that additional companies provide other types of Friction Modifiers, such as GMO supplied by Croda, and Molybedenum supplied by Vanderbilt. Would it be reasonable to mention these other Friction Modifiers as well, in order to broaden awareness and knowledge in chemistry applications? Perhaps the addition to the “Friction Modifier” section could read: “Important classes of Friction Modifiers are Fatty Amines, GMO, friction reducing index improvers like polymethylmethacryalte and nano particles.”

 * https://www.crodalubricants.com/en-gb/discovery-zone/product-range/friction-modifiers
 * http://www.vanderbiltchemicals.com/products/petro-engine-oil-additives/eo-friction-reducers

title: Talk:Lubricant


text:
Cast Away

Cast Away is a 2000 American survival drama film directed and produced by Robert Zemeckis and starring Tom Hanks, Helen Hunt, and Nick Searcy. Hanks plays a FedEx troubleshooter who is stranded on an uninhabited island after his plane crashes in the South Pacific, and the plot focuses on his desperate attempts to survive and return home. Initial filming took place from January to March 1999 before resuming in April 2000 and concluding in May.

Cast Away was released on December 22, 2000, by 20th Century Fox in North America and DreamWorks Pictures in its international markets. It grossed $429.6 million worldwide, making it the third-highest-grossing film of 2000. The film received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised its screenplay and Hanks' performance, for which he won Best Actor – Motion Picture Drama at the 58th Golden Globe Awards and was nominated for Best Actor in a Leading Role at the 73rd Academy Awards.

Plot
In December 1995, Chuck Noland is a FedEx systems analyst who travels the world resolving productivity problems. He lives with his girlfriend, Kelly Frears in Memphis, Tennessee. The two talk of getting married but keep experiencing setbacks due to Chuck being constantly called away to work, which also starts to put a strain on their relationship. During a Christmas dinner, Chuck is summoned to resolve a problem in Malaysia. Before leaving, Kelly gives Chuck her grandfather's pocket watch with a photo of her in it. He gives her a small box, saying she can wait to open it on New Year's Eve when he returns, implying it is an engagement ring.

The FedEx cargo plane Chuck boards crashes into the Pacific Ocean during a violent storm. He is the only survivor, washing ashore on an uninhabited island. Chuck gathers and sorts the FedEx packages that wash ashore. Chuck buries the body of one of the pilots that washes up on the coast. In the following days, Chuck struggles to locate food and water. He unsuccessfully tries to escape the island on a life raft, but is prevented by the tide and injures his leg. Realizing it is unlikely he will be rescued, Chuck opens most of the packages, finding useful items he uses to improve his living conditions. However, he does not open a package with pink angel wings painted on it. While attempting to start a fire, Chuck cuts his hand and furiously throws several objects including a Wilson volleyball, leaving a bloodstained handprint. He draws a face into the blood, names the ball "Wilson" and begins talking to it. Chuck realizes the chances of his rescue are low due to the wide search area, and decides to perform his own tooth extraction using a rock and an ice skate.

Four years later, Chuck, now bearded and disheveled, has adapted to life alone on the island. After a section from a portable toilet enclosure washes up, he begins constructing a raft, which he successfully launches past the surf with Wilson, the unopened FedEx package and his belongings in tow. Chuck survives a storm, but afterward, Wilson falls off the raft and floats away. He unsuccessfully attempts to rescue Wilson and is left to grieve his loss. Soon after, he is rescued by a passing cargo ship.

Four weeks later, Chuck is cleaned up and returned to the mainland, where he learns he was presumed dead by his family and friends. He is given a hero's welcome home party at the FedEx Headquarters in Memphis, where he learns that Kelly has since married and has a daughter. Kelly is emotionally unable to greet Chuck at his homecoming party. One night, Chuck visits Kelly, where they bond for the last time; the two share a passionate kiss and confess their love for each other, but they both realize she cannot leave her family, and they part ways, with Chuck returning the watch Kelly gave him.

Chuck drives to Texas to return the angel-winged package to its sender. Finding no one home, he leaves it at the door with a note saying the package saved his life. He departs in his vehicle and stops at a remote crossroads. A woman in a pickup truck, headed in the direction of the house, stops and gives information about where each road leads. As she drives away, Chuck notices the two angel wings painted on the tailgate of her truck. He looks down each road, trying to decide which way to go, before he notices the wind is blowing back down the road where the woman drove, and turns back to her direction with a smile.

Cast

 * Tom Hanks as Charles "Chuck" Noland, a FedEx systems analyst.
 * Helen Hunt as Kelly Frears, Chuck's estranged girlfriend
 * Nick Searcy as Stan, Chuck's best friend and co-worker
 * Jenifer Lewis as Becca Twig
 * Geoffrey Blake as Maynard Graham
 * Peter Von Berg as Yuri
 * Chris Noth as Dr. Gerald "Jerry" Lovett, a dentist who is later Kelly's husband
 * Lari White as Bettina Peterson, the woman who sent the unopened FedEx package
 * Vince Martin as Pilot Albert "Al" Miller, a FedEx pilot who is buried by Chuck on the island
 * Michael Forest as Pilot Jack
 * Jay Acovone as Pilot Peter
 * Garret Davis as Pilot Blaine
 * Viveka Davis as Pilot Gwen
 * Nan Martin as Kelly's mother
 * Dennis Letts as Dennis Larson
 * Valerie Wildman as Virginia Larson
 * Steve Monroe as Steve Larson
 * Elden Henson as Elden Madden
 * Timothy Stack as Morgan Stockton
 * Joe Conley as Joe Wally
 * Fred Smith as himself

Development
In a 2017 Actor Roundtable with The Hollywood Reporter, Tom Hanks stated ""

Filming
The film was not shot chronologically. It began on January 18, 1999, before halting two months later. Filming resumed on April 3, 2000, and finished the following month. Hanks gained 50 lb during pre-production, for the purpose of making his transformation more dramatic. After most of the film was shot, production was paused so he could lose the weight and grow his hair and beard to look like he had been living on the island for years. Another four-month production halt preceded the filming of the return scenes. During the year-long hiatus, Zemeckis used the same film crew to make another film, What Lies Beneath. While the film was in production, Hanks nearly died when he suffered an infected cut on his leg. He was rushed to a local hospital to undergo surgery and stayed there for three days. Filming of Cast Away was suspended for three weeks to allow Hanks to recover from the injury.

Cast Away was filmed on Monuriki, one of the Mamanuca Islands in Fiji. It is in a subgroup of the Mamanuca archipelago, which is sited off the coast of Viti Levu, Fiji's largest island. The island became a tourist attraction after the film's release. After Chuck's return, it is identified by Kelly as being "about 600 mi south of the Cook Islands," but there is no land between the southernmost Cook Islands of Mangaia and Antarctica.

The film begins and ends in the same location, on the Arrington Ranch in the Texas Panhandle south of the city of Canadian, Texas.

Music
The film's minimal score was composed and conducted by Alan Silvestri for which he won a Grammy Award in 2002. The film's soundtrack is most notable for its lack of score and creature sound effects (such as bird song or insect sounds) while Chuck is on the island, which is intended to reinforce the feeling of isolation. Cast Away contains no original musical score until Chuck escapes the island. However, there is a Russian choral piece heard near the start of the film that was not composed or even recorded by Silvestri, so it does not appear on the film's soundtrack list. It is a traditional Russian song written by Lev Knipper called "Oh, My Field" ("Polyushko, Polye") and it is available on various collections of Red Army hymns.

The official soundtrack CD is an anthology of musical pieces from all the films up to that point that were both directed by Zemeckis and scored by Silvestri. The only track from Cast Away itself is the theme from the end credits.

The Cast Away soundtrack consists of 10 tracks, with performers including Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, and Charles Brown.

FedEx
FedEx provided access to their facilities (Memphis, Los Angeles, and Moscow) as well as airplanes, trucks, uniforms, and logistical support. A team of FedEx marketers oversaw production through more than two years of filming. FedEx CEO Fred Smith made an appearance as himself for the scene where Chuck is welcomed back, which was filmed on location at FedEx's home facilities in Memphis, Tennessee. The idea of a story based on a FedEx plane crashing gave the company "a heart attack at first," but the overall story was seen as positive. FedEx, which paid no money for product placement in the film, saw an increase in brand awareness in Asia and Europe following the film's release.

Wilson the volleyball
In the film, Wilson the volleyball serves as Chuck Noland's personified friend and only companion during the four years that Noland spends alone on a deserted island. Named after the volleyball's manufacturer, Wilson Sporting Goods, the character was created by screenwriter William Broyles Jr. While researching for the film, he consulted with professional survival experts, and then chose to deliberately strand himself for one week on an isolated beach in the Gulf of California, to force himself to search for water and food, and obtain his own shelter. During this time, a volleyball washed up on shore, providing the inspiration for the film's inanimate companion. From a screenwriting point of view, Wilson also serves to realistically allow dialogue to take place in a solitary scenario.

It is rumored, but not confirmed, that one of the original volleyball props was sold at auction for $18,500 to the ex-CEO of FedEx Office, Ken May. At the time of the film's release, Wilson launched its own joint promotion centered on its products "co-starring" with Tom Hanks. Wilson manufactured a volleyball with a reproduction of the bloodied handprint face on one side. It was sold for a limited time during the film's initial release and continues to be offered on the company's website.

Box office
Cast Away opened in 2,774 theaters in North America and grossed $28.9 million (an average of $10,412 per theater) in its opening weekend. For the four-day Christmas long holiday weekend, it took in a total of $39.9 million. At that point, it had the highest Christmas opening weekend of any film, surpassing Patch Adams. Upon opening, Cast Away reached the number one spot at the box office, beating another Helen Hunt film, What Women Want. It would also compete against How the Grinch Stole Christmas, which was released the previous month. With a total gross of $8.5 million, Cast Away held the record for having the biggest New Year's Eve gross until Meet the Fockers took it in 2004. The film remained at the top of the box office for three weeks until it was overtaken by Save the Last Dance. Cast Away kept performing well and ended up earning $233.6 million domestically and $196 million internationally, for a total of $429.6 million, against its production budget of $90 million. It became the third-highest-grossing film of 2000, behind Mission: Impossible 2 and Gladiator.

Critical response
On Rotten Tomatoes, Cast Away holds an approval rating of 89% based on 158 reviews, with an average rating of 7.40/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Flawed but fascinating, Cast Away offers an intelligent script, some of Robert Zemeckis' most mature directing, and a showcase performance from Tom Hanks." On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 73 out of 100 based on reviews from 32 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews". Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B" on an A+ to F scale.

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film three stars out of four. In his review, he praised Hanks for doing "a superb job of carrying Cast Away all by himself for about two-thirds of its running time" by "never straining for effect, always persuasive even in this unlikely situation, winning our sympathy with his eyes and his body language when there's no one else on the screen." However, he also mentioned how he felt that the film is "a strong and simple story surrounded by needless complications, and flawed by a last act that disappoints us and then ends on a note of forced whimsy."

Home media
Cast Away was released on VHS and DVD on June 12, 2001 by 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment. The DVD version of the film is a THX certified two-disc Special Edition release that features a DTS 6.1 ES audio track and several bonus features, including galleries, special effects vignettes, audio commentary, trailers, TV spots, behind-the-scenes footage, interviews, featurettes and more. It became the fastest-selling DVD release in 20th Century Fox history, selling 1.8 million copies and surpassing X-Men. Additionally, the film generated $5.5 million in rentals, which broke Traffic's record for having the highest DVD rentals. Cast Away would go on to hold this record until 2002 when it was taken by The Fast and the Furious. In total, the film made $57 million in home video sales and $20.6 million in home video rentals during its first week of release, with the latter becoming the third-highest home video rentals of any film, behind Meet the Parents and The Sixth Sense.

A single-disc DVD version of the film was released alongside Independence Day on May 21, 2002.

In popular culture
A FedEx commercial during Super Bowl XXXVII parodied the final scene of the film, in which Chuck Noland returns a package to its sender. In this version, the woman answers the door, and when Noland asks what was in the box, the woman replies: "Just a satellite phone, GPS locator, fishing rod, water purifier, and some seeds. Just silly stuff."

Media executive Lloyd Braun of ABC first suggested the idea of a Cast Away–type television series at a dinner party in 2003. Thom Sherman later pitched the idea for Cast Away – The Series, but never developed the idea. The concept was later developed and pitched with the title Nowhere, which later turned into the ABC show Lost.

The second episode of the seventh season of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, "The Gang Goes to the Jersey Shore" refers to a Cast Away scene. When Frank loses his "rum ham" while floating on a raft in the Atlantic Ocean, his anguish resembles that of Tom Hanks' character losing a volleyball he named "Wilson."

On December 31, 2002, at Madison Square Garden, Phish played a clip from the film on the jumbotron to introduce their song "Wilson" during their concert. They later introduced "Tom Hanks" during the song onstage, but it was later revealed to be keyboardist Page McConnell's brother Steve.

On April 15, 2022, at Progressive Field, Tom Hanks threw the ceremonial first pitch at the Cleveland Guardians home opener, accompanied by a replica of Wilson from the movie.

Dale Earnhardt Jr. Raced with a Wilson replica in his car to two victories in the fall of 2001 at Dover and Talladega. This was due to a joke on the radio that he felt lonely in the car during a race.

title: Cast Away


text:
Allegro (software library)

Allegro is a software library for video game development. The functionality of the library includes support for basic 2D graphics, image manipulation, text output, audio output, MIDI music, input and timers, as well as additional routines for fixed-point and floating-point matrix arithmetic, Unicode strings, file system access, file manipulation, data files, and 3D graphics. The library is written in the C programming language and designed to be used with C, C++, or Objective-C, with bindings available for Python, Lua, Scheme, D, Go, and other languages. Allegro comes with extensive documentation and many examples.

Allegro supports Windows, macOS, Unix-like systems, Android, and iOS, abstracting their application programming interfaces (APIs) into one portable interface. It can run also on top of Simple DirectMedia Layer which is used to run Allegro programs in web browser using Emscripten.

Released under the terms of the zlib license, Allegro is free and open source software.

History
Initially standing for Atari Low-Level Game Routines, Allegro was originally created by Shawn Hargreaves for the Atari ST in the early 1990s. However, Hargreaves abandoned the Atari version as he realized the platform was dying, and reimplemented his work for the Borland C++ and DJGPP compilers in 1995. Support for Borland C++ was dropped in version 2.0, and DJGPP was the only supported compiler. As DJGPP was a DOS compiler, all games which used Allegro therefore used DOS, attracting the enthusiast scene for that legacy system. Around 1998, Allegro branched out into several versions. A port to Windows, WinAllegro, was created, and also during this time, a Unix port of Allegro, XwinAllegro, was created. These various ports were brought together during the Allegro 3.9 WIP versions, with Allegro 4.0 being the first stable version of Allegro to support multiple platforms.

Allegro 5
Current development is focused on the Allegro 5 branch, a complete redesign of both the API and much of the library's internal operation. Effort was made to make the API more consistent and multi-thread safe. By default, the library is now hardware accelerated using OpenGL or DirectX rendering backends where appropriate. Many of the addons that existed as separate projects for Allegro 4 now interface seamlessly with Allegro proper and are bundled with the default installation. Allegro 5 is event driven.

Features
Allegro 5 supports following features in its Core API:

 * Configuration files – INI format file handling
 * Displays - working with windows
 * Events - event management
 * File I/O - abstraction over both real files and files inside some data file (e.g. ZIP * archive)
 * Filesystem - abstraction over both real file system and file system inside some data file (e.g. ZIP archive)
 * Fixed point math - might useful for embedded processors without FPU
 * Fullscreen modes
 * Graphics routines - colors, pixel formats, bitmaps, clipping
 * Haptic routines - force feedback and vibration on input devices
 * Joystick routines
 * Keyboard routines
 * Memory management
 * Monitors
 * Mouse routines
 * Path structures - file path manipulation
 * Shader
 * State - you can store and later restore the state of Allegro application
 * System routines
 * Threads
 * Time
 * Timer
 * Touch input
 * Transformations – transformation of coordinates for 2D and 3D
 * UTF-8 string routines
 * Direct3D integration
 * OpenGL integration

Addons
The community of Allegro users have contributed several library extensions to handle things like scrolling tile maps and import and export of various file formats. Also some parts of what used to be part of Allegro, is now separated as an addon in Allegro 5. These addons are distributed with the core library:

 * Audio addon
 * Audio codecs - .wav, .flac, .ogg, .opus, .it, .mod, .s3m, .xm, .voc
 * Color addon - color space conversion
 * Font addons
 * Image I/O addon - BMP, DDS, PCX, TGA, JPEG, PNG
 * Main addon
 * Memfile addon - treat a fixed block of contiguous memory as a file
 * Native dialogs addon
 * PhysicsFS addon - using archive as a file system
 * Primitives addon - drawing primitives (e.g. circle)
 * Video streaming addon

title: Allegro (software library)


text:
User:Busterdog

Software engineer in Arizona. Monty Python Fan, Republican.

I love the concept of Wikipedia, but don't have enough time to help out much. I will try to remedy that in the future.

title: User:Busterdog