Talk:Big Inch

Big Inch has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 23, 2015. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Big Inch appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 May 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Big Inch, a petroleum pipeline, had a companion project named Little Big Inch?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Big Inch.

Wikipedia

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / North America / United States / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Citation style...

Hi. I was looking to do a bit of work on this article in coming weeks. Its citation style, however, is inconsistent - different cites take different forms. I'm proposing to make them consistent, and using the harvnb template and cite web templates for books/articles and on-line sources respectively. Would anyone object to this, or prefer a different citation style? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By all means tidy as seems right. It was one of the earliest articles I wrote, before I understood citations, and I (to my shame) haven't returned to fix things up. Acroterion (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Acroterion. Any other views? If not, I'll make the changes later on. Hchc2009 (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this conversation after making my own efforts to clean up citations. Please be bold and do more! (We can always reach consensus through editing, which is more directly productive than reaching it through discussion beforehand.) Elizabeth Linden Rahway (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! I've got one or two recent pieces to add, and found some usable pictures, so will make an attempt on it tonight. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial stab at formatting complete, and a bit of expansion done. I've paused in case there are any severe misgivings about the citation style; if people are content, I'll crack on with some more material later in the week. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article title...

Looking at the title of the article, I'm wondering if this shouldn't be retitled something like the Inch pipelines. It covers both the Big and Little Inch pipelines, but Big and Little Inche pipelines sounds a bit cumbersome, and a lot of the literature uses the term "Inch pipelines" to refer to the combination of the two. We could then have redirects from the Big and Little Inch names etc. What do people reckon? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to tell: "Inch pipelines" would be my choice if we rename. However, keeping it Big Inch might fit better with WP:COMMONNAME. Acroterion (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]