 | 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:
|  |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Citation style...
editHi. 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)
- 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)
- Cheers Acroterion. Any other views? If not, I'll make the changes later on. Hchc2009 (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Cheers Acroterion. Any other views? If not, I'll make the changes later on. Hchc2009 (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
Article title...
editLooking 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)
- 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)