Talk:1st Theater Sustainment Command

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

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Comment[edit]

no longer 1st coscom

following the army's transformation, 1st coscom is now the 1st theatre sustainment command. the article should be renamed to show this

Leaning shit house[edit]

I have found several sources that maybe considered reliable that give this unit the nickname "Leaning shit house". 1 2 3. Before adding this in the infobox, I would like to get a consensus as to how active editors feel about this. If there is opposition to this, I won't do it. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removed section about unit history[edit]

An entire section headed "History of 1st Theater Sustainment Command" had been lifted verbatim from this site. In the absence of any explanation this must be considered a copyright violation. I removed it. Someone went to a fair amount of trouble to wikify those paragraphs and they can certainly be restored, when and if the copyright status of that text can be identified. --Lockley (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The website is a .mil, which means everything on it is PD. Technically it's fine to use as is, though that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attributed (or better yet paraphrased and cited inline). Parsecboy (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had tagged it previously due to the reasons stated in the multiple issue reference, plus it was basically copy/pasted; however, I don't know if it should have been completely removed, just improved. If I remember correctly, isn't there a template to state that a certain section is taking from a government source, and is from public domain? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few of them, you can find them here. Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be consensus to re-add the removed material, with a reference link to the page that it was taken from, and the template Template:US Army? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]