Currently "Badlands" is this article and Badlands (disambiguation) has links to some others like the Alberta badlands.

I would like to move this to "Dakota badlands" and the disambig to "Badlands", then expand the disambig by adding some other badland areas from w:Badlands. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd still like to make that move. Would still like to hear other opinions. Pashley (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

If any of them are similarly well-known, sure, go ahead. Are they? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

That move makes sense to me. I would expect a "Badlands" article to point to every notable badlands destination, including ones just across the border in Canada, and maybe even geologically-similar formations worldwide.

Once there's an all-inclusive "Badlands" article, I'm not sure "Dakota Badlands" is worth keeping around as a separate extra-hierarchical region. (Wikivoyage also merges the South Dakota Badlands with the geologically-distinct Black Hills, which makes sense for planning a South Dakota vacation but not for a badlands travel topic.) Gerode (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply