Talk:List of pipeline accidents in the United States

Split proposal
It has been proposed that this article be split into mulitple articles. Should this happen? -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 08:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Split at about 1970s, the halfway point due to article size.--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that this article needs all this detail. Some inclusion criteria needs to be defined, otherwise it will just get out of hand (as if it isn't already). This needs to be addressed before splitting. Op47 (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was be bold and removed entries from the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s which didn't seem overly notable; e.g., no deaths, no major property damage/environmental effects, incidents that say there was no fire, no injuries, etc. If no one complains I'll do similar with the other lists, but this article suffers from a serious case of overlistification. MsFionnuala (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This can be tricky, for some would like to know about pipeline accidents in general in those times, since the US Gov't. didn't have any regulating agency for pipeline then. I am trying to edit details out.--Pipeexaminer (talk)
 * Another possibility would be to split by severity as defined in Hazard analysis. Op47 (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Current split seems good to me.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Split by decade
Splitting into individual years seems like it results in overly-short articles. I think doing decades might work better. There's also a lot of repetitive boilerplate at the beginning of many articles, which gives information about years that don't apply to the article. Merging would reduce a lot of boilerplate repeated word-for-word. -- Beland (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 *  Reply - I already split by year, but if it remains under 100 kB, I am OK with this, and I am also OK with splitting by individual year. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)