Talk:Omaha (disambiguation)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Omaha (disambiguation) page.
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

Unnamed section

I think this page should redirect to Omaha, Nebraska and make the rest a disambiguation. Omaha, Nebraska is what people mean most of the time when they say "Omaha". SCHZMO ✍ 12:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree --151.203.14.68 08:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I agree, too. Nacho Dork 18:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you all agree then someone do it already! Personally I would think keep it a disambiguation page, but Omaha simply redirects to the disambiguation page. I will personally change the redirect from going here and make it go to the city instead if no one else disagrees without 10 days.24.182.142.254 (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sort

User:Dsimic per WP:MOSDAB alphabetic sorting is an option, but isn't necessarily a preferred one or even a default. In this dab, the primary topic and other US places are desirable together. Is there a reason to alphabetic sort? Widefox; talk 07:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I referred to having the section entries alphabetized, not the sections themselves. The current ordering of sections is fine, but it might be debatable which order would match the importance of section entries, while alphabetizing the entries would be a somewhat "neutral" approach. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Entry wise I still sorted by usage rather than alphabetic. e.g. software probably less viewed than tribe. But that's guesswork, and really secondary. The blue link album rather than the unlinked songs is one way, but chrono is another there. I'm not sure it matters too much, but AB is normally my least favourite as it gets in the way of the most popular. Widefox; talk 17:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that determining the popularity is highly subjective. That's why alphabetizing the section entries might be a much better choice. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the way I did it was gut, not science, mainly keeping the places together and following MOSDAB in preferring entries with links over non-linked. More effort could be put in to sort by popularity, then it would be the opposite: view stats are objective, and the correlation to dab items is straightforward for article titles, and may be argued for other entries. I'd take that any day over AB for most dabs. AB may seem neat but dabs are commonly not sorted AB. For instance how would you keep the "Places" together, and if not, would that help readers or just seem more neat? We put "People" at the end too. We had to block one editor who was mass AB sorting them. I don't have a strong opinion on this dab, but suggest reaching consensus here as AB is not a default per MOSDAB, so in my book a case should be made, rather than a burden not to. Widefox; talk 12:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still find that alphabetizing the section entries, in general, might be a better choice. That's just my opinion. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]