Talk:Badlands and Black Hills

Sub-Regions

If there are no objections, I am going to move the information on Black Hills to the Black Hills National Forest and move the information on Badlands to the Badlands National Park then redirect these. We have this region that covers both and I don't think we need the additional region split and we can centralize the information in the park pages. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 15:26, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)

Makes sense to me, I'd support making that change. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:52, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)

After further research it appears Badlands describes a large region that is in both North Dakota and South Dakota, so I am going to leave the page, but remove it as a sub-region in South Dakota and associate both North and South Dakota to it, as well as the Badlands National Park. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 16:30, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)

There is already a Badlands (North Dakota) region. Is there an advantage to maintaining an additional parent region for both the North & South Dakota badlands? Or do we need a Badlands (South Dakota) region? And if we do, what does that cover that isn't covered by the Badlands and Black Hills region? I'm not familiar enough with the state to know how best to divide it up, but regions that cross states are a bit of an organizational problem unless they are a well-known travel destination like Lake Tahoe, and I'm not sure the Badlands meet that criteria. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:42, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)

This would be outside the normal hierarchy. It would be done like I did the Ozarks which covers parts of Missouri, Oklahoma and Arkansas. If you notice there are three breadcrumb isIn's there. When Evan gets that working all three will show up. We can also use the new {{related|Badlands}} in other pages to relate back to it. In other words Badlands would be a seperate article that covers an area outside the normal hierarchy. Does that make sense? -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 16:51, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)

I don't know the area well enough, so if it makes sense to you then my opinion would be go ahead and plunge forward. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:21, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)