Talk:Badlands (disambiguation)

@MinecraftBedrockPlayer7: I'm slightly confused why this (and by extension Taiga (disambiguation)) was marked for deletion. Most of the linked articles are some varient of the Badlands biome that may get confused with eachother. TheCaptainYaya (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

That's what the definition of disambiguation pages and hatnotes is about. Differrentiating two or more articles with the same title, or titles that are easily confused with each other. But that's not the case for Badlands and Eroded Badlands, there's just nothing ambigious or confusing about that, so it should just be linked in the body, see also, and navboxes. Hatnotes are at the very top at the page, there must be a very good reason to put that there and it's not for navigation purposes.
This and Taiga (disambiguation) are unnecessary because they don't contain links (or just one) that warrants a hatnote. Also read WP:NAMB. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
10:50, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I would say that most people would not know the differences between the specific Badlands biomes off the top of their head, and collectively reffer to them as Badlands. I certainly cannot tell you what "modified" means in the context of Badlands, nor would I even remember that plateued Badlands were a seperate variant if I didn't check the disambiguation. And I can certainly see someone wanting to get information on one of the Badland varients and heading off into the main Badlands article. TheCaptainYaya (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

It's a good thing to inform about variants and improve navigation, but that's just not what disambigs and hatnotes are for. They should only be used if two pages can actually be confused with each other, that's a different thing than not knowing about variant biomes.
Such information should just be in the body, See also, or navboxes. Maybe a messagebox below the infobox "variant biomes" also works. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
17:30, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Here is how that would look. In my opinion a much better style than a two-click disambig which usually contains other stuff. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
09:15, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

That would certainly be better than the current state of the article. Though, if there was a way to put some sort of navigation mechanism or notice of the biome variants near the top of the page it would be better.

As you suggested in the style guide discussion, I just read through all of Wikipedia's policies on disambiguations. I still think this page may have some use, is it okay to have this as a set index? TheCaptainYaya (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

We currently don't have a clear policy about set indexes either and I don't mind about them... so go ahead. As long as it's not linked in hatnotes. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
13:39, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The question is though what should such a set index be named considering "Badlands" itself is already taken, and I'm not sure if there is any other page of the form "Badlands (set index)". TheCaptainYaya (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

That's why we need a set index guide/discussion. I have absolutely no idea... MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
22:04, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

We can simply change this into a set index tbh. See other examples in Category:Set index pages. 👁 Image
Ayaan 06:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey. I think you might be misunderstanding the essays. I think this would be an acceptable disambiguation as users can be confused between the different biomes of badlands.

With the Mercury disambiguation page on Wikipedia, not only does it include disambiguated titles enclosed in parentheses but also examples like Mercury Cyclecar Company, Mercury Energy and so on; which are very similar to this disambiguation page. 👁 Image
Ayaan 06:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I might have also misunderstood since Badlands all relate but those examples do not. Set index is a lot better 👁 Image
Ayaan 07:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)