Talk:Badlands

Untitled
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)


 * Yemen or some parts of Somalia and Ethiopia comes to mind from the pictures, but I don't know if the soil type is the same. Possibly also between Sahara and Atlas mountains? 91.153.50.83 15:10, 25 June 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. --Matth e w UND (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)


 * The article no longer is Dakotas-centric. I have deleted its location-specific categories.  See interwiki links to equivalent pages for plenty of badlands outside the Dakotas. Una Smith 22:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the term is used in North America but the terrain type can be found elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.10.163 (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

"Electric vehicles" section
I removed a section called "Electric vehicles", the text of which was "Badlands fleet is operating two Toyota Prius gasoline-electric hybrid cars.", and also a category about electric vehicles. The sentence had nothing to do with the article and nor did the category. 87.80.97.137 (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Etymology
Anyone have insight on the derivation of the term, with a citation? I'm guessing that these lands are bad for living in, based on the description, but a little etymology might be nice. --Badger151 (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The "Name" section sort of does this, albeit in about the least helpful way possible :) 82.6.2.251 (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've made the incredibly simple and obvious move of deleting this highly redundant section. That section is literally worse than nothing. (Yes it has a references which is enough to pass verification but it utterly failed on so many others levels, such as notability to name just one.) -- 109.76.241.81 (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * A quick search finds a whole lot of stating the ... obvious but does go on to claim that the term badlands comes from mapping terminology and the meaning is that the lands are difficult to traverse. USA Today attempts to explain the name but doesn't do a great job either. If that section is to be ever restored it needs a lot more work. -- 109.76.241.81 (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

US centric
I think this article is weirdly Americacentric. Forgetting even the vivid geographic formations of the rest of the world is already too much. -Ercwlff (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)