Talk:Omaha, Nebraska

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Omaha, Nebraska article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 6 months

Omaha, Nebraska was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 7, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
September 8, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
September 28, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
December 27, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 31, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

United States: Nebraska / Omaha Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Nebraska portal This article is supported by WikiProject Nebraska (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Nebraska - Omaha (assessed as Top-importance).

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Land Area

There are multiple statements of the land area, each one different. First, the Quick Box; then, the Geography section. Further, the link cited in the QB gives a third value for land area. The Geography citation has a broken link. 173.15.148.145 (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sudanese wars

Where there was a dead link to a non-existent article I provided link to disambiguation link: Sudanese Civil War, because there are several articles on the different wars since the 1990s in Sudan.Dogru144 (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Speedy close. WP:USPLACE has been perennially enforced in practice, so the way to change it is to open an RfC, not trying Hail Mary RMs until a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is achieved by luck of the draw. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omaha, Nebraska → Omaha – well established WP:PRIMARYTOPIC PK2 (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). В²C ☎ 13:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I am moving this from uncontested technical requests because it conflicts with WP:USPLACE and therefore should be discussed first. However, I agree with nom that this city is the “well established primary topic” for Omaha. Furthermore, this title is clearly more CONCISE and is no less recognizable. I think meeting WP:CRITERIA policy better trumps the USPLACE guideline which should be updated to eliminate this conflict and ignored for now per pillar WP:IAR. For those who think the guideline should be updated first I say WP works bottom up and this move would help establish community support and need for a change to USPLACE. —В²C ☎ 13:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- While contested technical requests generally lead to RMs, this proposal ignores the instructions at WP:PERENNIAL:
  "...you should address rebuttals raised in the past if you make a proposal along these lines. If you feel you would still like to do one of these proposals, then raise it at the village pump."
  PK2 is welcome to do this (as are you), but to use a technical request to skirt these requirements games the system. I recommend the proposal be withdrawn or swiftly closed. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Much like the recent proposal at Nashville, Tennessee, the policy at WP:USPLACE explicitly states that the state name be included. A discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) would be the way to go, not this. 162 etc. (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. It bugs me when points are anticipated and addressed, but nevertheless completely ignored. “For those who think the guideline should be updated first I say WP works bottom up and this move would help establish community support and need for a change to USPLACE.” —В²C ☎

RMs are for discussion regarding a specific article title, not re-evaluating the rules. If you want to "help establish community support", then discuss it on the aforementioned talk page. See WP:RFC. 162 etc. (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This U.S. placename falls under the WP:USPLACE guideline, and does not qualify under the so-called AP Stylebook exception rule like Atlanta or Baltimore. See also Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Remove state from US placenames for the rationale for WP:USPLACE. And IMO, on how I treat WP:COMMONSENSE, I do not think it is a good idea for editors to start doing a bunch of IAR's from the "bottom up" when this is one of the many heavily debated, contested, or controversial issues that have been listed on Wikipedia:Perennial proposals, or once had a moratorium placed on its discussions. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I question whether there should even be a primary topic in terms of long-term significance when Omaha Beach seems to always get this huge spike in traffic every June during its anniversary. Like two months ago when it peaked up to over 9500.[1] Or back in 2019 when it shot to over 53,000.[2] An international historic event like that one should probably have about the same international long-term significance as the U.S. city. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Oppose this discussion should be at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) if there's appetite for a wider discussion. We need some guideline to avoid wasting time through a hundred repeated (and useless) discussions on adding/removing state names, and no guideline to replace the AP guidebook is proposed here. I can think of half a dozen other cities where I would remove the statename before Omaha; Orlando and Nashville being the two most obvious. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read my Support comment at the top? —В²C ☎ 21:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, and I am opposed to it procedurally. There are reasons this has been contentious for many years, and "just ignore it" is not a feasible solution. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before I'm not sure that the state is needed but USPLACE says its common usage in terms of ENGVAR etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:USPLACE, WP:RS, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:ENGVAR, WP:CONSISTENT, and other long-accepted grounds that have already been very thoroughly explored and considered (and none of which the nomination addresses or even acknowledges, in violation of the instructions at WP:PERENNIAL). ╠╣uw [talk] 10:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WP:USPLACE is fine for obscure or ambiguous place names, but we should not be beholden to anyone else's style guide for naming famous cities. BD2412 T 02:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:CONSISTENT. U.S. places generally take the form City, State, which can be useful in precisely identifying the topic. Omaha already redirects here as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, so there is no special benefit to a title change in this particular case. Station1 (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per WP:USPLACE, WP:RS, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:ENGVAR, WP:CONSISTENT, and as Huw says "and other long-accepted grounds that have already been very thoroughly explored and considered (and none of which the nomination addresses or even acknowledges, in violation of the instructions at WP:PERENNIAL)" exactly. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support As with Nashville, I support this because of our naming policies on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT. Unfortunately, I don't believe this will take place without a wider discussion on WP:USPLACE. Our current title policy for US cities requires us to ignore common usage, common sense, and consistency across other cities throughout the world. If the reason why Nashville or Omaha requires disambiguation be used rather than its common name but Sanandaj, Salmon Arm, Kapan and Bognor Regis do not is because of a policy that demands it, then the policy doesn't make much sense.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Odd choice of photos for article collage

It seems the photos in the image collage for the Omaha article were updated in the relatively recent past. The skyline image was changed to an image that is a bad angle, and images of Fort Omaha and Sacred Heart Church are odd choices. They may have importance in local history, but are not relevant to an outsider who is wanting to learn about Omaha (unless they were in a specific, relevant subsection). The image of Charles Schwab Field is also an odd angle that doesn't really represent the structure well. Photos of other major landmarks that would make sense would be Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo and Aquarium, the Lauritzen Gardens, a better photo of Charles Schwab Field Omaha, the Bob Kerrey Pedestrian Bridge, Joslyn Castle, etc.

I am still a novice with editing. Is there a way to just link directly to those Wikipedia pages to have the photos appear in the photo collage for the Omaha article? André Le Nôtre (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I got rid of the Scare Coeur photo and replaced it with the stockyards. It doesn't appear that there are any good photos of the zoo unfortunately. Bridge is a good idea, might be a good candidate to replace the baseball stadium. –DMartin 01:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also restored the skyline photo and replaced the stadium one. –DMartin 02:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped out the photo of the Bob Kerrey Pedestrian Bridge for a higher-quality image. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DMartin and Magnolia667, I appreciate the changes!

I would keep the baseball stadium but use the image from the Charles Schwab Field Omaha article. Glad the pedestrian bridge was added, but I think the image from the Bob Kerrey Pedestrian Bridge article would be better as it offers a better overall scale and is more aesthetically interesting. The bridge image used is also pretty dated, and not a great look with no one visibly using the bridge (it is actually highly used). Fort Omaha does not need to stay. The skyline image angle is better, but it's still not great, and it's rather dated; an aerial view of downtown from the southeast (looking northeest) would be the best angle, but I know there's not an infinite pool of copyright-free images to use... Stockyards are OK (an important piece of history, but not really relevant today). It would be great to add a good image of the Joslyn Art Museum, but none of what's included on its article page is very good. (Joslyn Art Museum is also undergoing a major addition, so perhaps it's best to wait and add an updated image when it's finished in the next year or so.) The USS Hazard image also does not need to stay; I guarantee no one locally thinks of it as any kind of notable landmark or part of Omaha's identity, or even thinks of it at all... André Le Nôtre (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Omaha, Nebraska

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 listing contains significant uncited material, not meeting GA criterion 2b), and suffers from poor organisation throughout, including a very problematic "In popular culture" section. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.