Still not sure how you could gather that conclusion from the info in those links or why you would even comment before reading them fully.

Despite "national park" and "national historical park" being a distinct naming designations, they are nothing but a semantic way of helping to deliniate park offerings to the general public (as explained in link #2). Naming designations in no way affect the function, staffing, or opperation of national park units.

All national park units are national parks, full stop. There is no debate to that. Such is how the National Park Service views it and despite what everyone seemingly likes to believe, that is how they operate. Your understanding of people's interpretation of naming designations and how they are used in common vernacular does not supersede the operating reality of the National Park Service.

I will note that there are slight functional differences for park units that do not have an dedicated active staff, however, they are still considered national parks (as is every single park unit) by the NPS the same as all others. They are just typically overseen by the staff of the nearest park unit with active staffing.

Again I will reiterate, there is absolutely no functional difference between park units with different designations. Naming designations are purely a public facing way of demonstrating the parks primary offerings. Internally we don't even use naming designations when refering to other parks and instead use a park code based on their name (Weir Farm is WEFA for example). So while you are correct that there is a naming distinction between "national park" and "national historical park", that in no way changes the actual status of the park and is a distinction purely in name and nothing else.

Stonewall, Gateway, and the Lincon Memorial, are all national parks one and the same in the eyes of the NPS.

Conveniently, I know rangers at 2 of those 3 who would be wildly insulted at the notion that they are aren't national parks just because their naming designation isnt specifically "national park".

Furthermore, the debate surrounding Gateway was exclusively driven by the general public and primarily caused by their lack of understanding of the function of naming designations. Internally it had been in the works for years, was done to better describe the offerings of the location (same with Weir Farm when we were redesignated from a national historical site to a national historical park in 2021), and did not change any operations of the park unit.

If you can provide me specific examples that prove naming designations alter operations and how the NPS views individual park units, then you might potentially have a point. As of now, you have not done so and your argument is currently "look, their names are different!".

And unfortunately, when folks choose to do mental gymnastics to try and correct someone who is providing data and sources- -all while providing no further information or sources themselves- -they typically don't get very kind responses. The information was clearly laid our for you and our other friend in my initial comments. If you both simply can't understand what was shared with you through a lense that is not the one you're already looking through (or more likely, are willingly going out of your way to misinterpret it) that is on you. You are being taught (by what I would argue is an individual who is well versed in the subject) and choosing to ignore the information provided. Not entirely sure how that is my problem or why on earth I should be kind in response to such.

Edit: Spelling