Template talk:North Omaha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] New design

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

[edit] 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)