Shouldn't generic locations be a concept?

Came across this as I was just setting wiki links for a region page.

Under locations, there are broad concepts such as mountains, swamp, river, sewer, etc. listed as locations. Should locations not be for a specific example of each? i.e something like the Himalayas or the Alps are a location, but mountains are merely a concept, they are not a location as-of-themselves.

I'm talking basically the difference between the difference between "a mountain" and "the mountain." "A mountain" could refer to any mountain (a concept, an idea), but "the mountain" refers to a specific one (an actual place).

If there's a reason it's currently set-up like it is, I'd love to know the reason; but I seriously think they need to be re-categorized.

In cases where one location encapsulates another, the association should be made to the more specific location.

The old help page

They're valid settings for games. But if a more specific location is available, you should remove the general one.

It seems like the only time locations are used as concepts are when they're an actual part of the shared game experience, such as the Lava Stage. Using "mountains" as a concept would only really apply to if you can see mountains in the distance (or as a gameplay mechanic), ideally if it wasn't just used for window dressing. Not a video game example, but Mount Fuji is a location, while 36 Views of Mount Fuji uses Mount Fuji as a concept.

Even then I don't think that really merits twinning the entry as both a concept and a location, with very few exceptions such as the Lava Level one, where a location becomes a concept because it has also become a gaming cliche. A good rule of thumb might be "if your character is there, it's a location."