Template talk:North Omaha

New design

Smmurphy and anyone else, what are your thoughts/reactions to the new, concise layout? - Freechild 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Original layout

The entry "controversial plan" is unclear. Perhaps "Split the District" or "LB 1024" or "OPS split (LB 1024)" or something would be better. What do you think? Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - think that just got cut off. Are all the future articles okay to have on there, or should I take them out? - Freechild 19:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "One City, One School District" was a common phrase used to describe the issue before LB 1024 was passed. – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 20:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If by future articles, you mean redlinks, then yeah, I think that is fine. Redlinks encourage development of needed articles. But if this gets over-long, we might need to cull some, or have the template be "collapsible" such as the templates at the end of, for instance, the Algeria article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Too big

This template is getting WAY too big–there are just too many things in it and it needs to be drastically trimmed. Not every article concerning North Omaha needs to be in a nav box. It could be split into several boxes. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

This template is faaaaaar from containing every article about North Omaha. Dividing it into smaller boxes is a time consuming process that I invite you to begin. I have begun to answer your request by trimming out the individuals and bands included in the template. However, I hope that you'll refrain from cutting anything from this template. If you must remove things, move them to new templates. • Freechildtalk 18:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)