Talk:Badlands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Dakota, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of North Dakota.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is part of WikiProject Nebraska, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Nebraska.

How exactly is an article about a type of landscape exclusively associated with a couple U.S. states? I could see if it were an article about badlands in ND and SD, but it's about badlands in general right? --Second crimson 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

yup the only other mention is a picture of badlands found in Canada - which i had put up. however, as i'm not from a part of the world which has badlands, i don't know where else they can be found. Chensiyuan 02:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that this article is exclusively associated with "a couple U.S. states"? The badlands that run through the Dakotas are a very good example of what that type of landscape is like and where it can be found, so I don't see why there is a problem with mentioning that badlands can be found in those states. Other than that, the only other mention of the Dakotas are the two navigation boxes at the end of the article. --MatthewUND^(talk) 05:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I meant. I could see why there would be navigation boxes for the article if it were about Dakota badlands, but I don't see why they are there. I guess I mispoke myself: I just meant the fact that the article had those two extremely large (and I think unnecessary) navigation boxes at the bottom and the fact that most of the categories are for US states, when it really isn't about the states, it's about the terrain type. It seems this would be like if the desert article had a navigation box for Africa at the bottom. I think it would be better suited to have links to North and South Dakota in a See Also section instead of two large boxes, but that's just my 2 cents. --Second crimson 14:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)