Talk:Unified combatant command

message: The proposed unified medical command seems to have been shot down . On the other hand, Africa Command appears to be a done deal .  Morinao 01:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AFRICOM approval

message: Corrections:
<Unified Combatant Command (COCOM) formerly known as a regional "Commander-in Chief">
CINC was the term or the head of the combatant command, not the command itself.  CINCPACOM, for example, was head of USPACOM.  
<The Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 added a new level of commander-in-chief (CINC) to the U.S. military's chain of command. >
Regional Unified Commands (USPACOM, USEUCOM, etc.) and their CINCs existed well before the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act.  They have existed since about 1947, and some date to World War II.  I'll use USPACOM as an example.
17:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarifications / corrections 

message: CCDR appears to be a made up acronym - the military and the rest of the world uses 'COCOM' for Combatant Command (as in a Unified Combatant Command).
I can find no reference outside of Wikipedia's article on Goldwater-Nichols and this page to the use of CCDR as the acronym/initialism for Combatant Commands.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.197.115 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: CCDR is the official DoD acronym for the Combatant Commander, not the Combatant Command. However it's not as catchy as CINC used to be...  COCOM refers not to the Combatant Command itself, but to the inherent Command Authority exercised by a Combatant Commander, which cannot be re-delegated to a JFCC or JTF Commander. RicJac (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I amended the article to clarify the distinction between combatant commander (CCDR) and the combatant command (COCOM) command authority, to include specific citations of JP 1, JP 1-02, and 10 USC 164.  While the distinction is clear in US federal law and military policy/doctrine, it is often confused in everyday conversation.Preuninger (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still confusing to the average layman - it needs to be rewritten for clarity. - BilCat (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  CCDR? 

message: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140209/DEFREG02/302090011
"The plan is usually reviewed every two years and has not been updated since April 2011."
That seems to disagree with the latest edits WRT annual updates. Hcobb (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  No annual updates lately 

message: - "Unififed Combatant Command" should be capitalized, per MOS:INSTITUTIONS and MOS:MILTERMS. Thanks -  theWOLFchild 01:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - Wolf, read your cites again. "However, the words for types of military unit (army, navy, fleet, company, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name" (MOS:MILTERMS). A unified combatant command is a type of military unit, like an army, fleet, company, etc. The proper names of UCCs are capitalized (U.S. Strategic Command, U.S. Pacific Command, etc.), but the term unified combatant command should never be capitalized, because it's never part of a proper name of a particular unit. It's always a generic unit type. (Even the joint pubs usually get this right, and military writing is NOTORIOUS for inappropriate capitalization of common nouns.) Holy (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

text: I see that you reverted my entire edit, making LOTS of generic terms capitalized, which should be lowercase. For example, "area of responsibility" is not a proper noun. You shouldn't have reverted; you should have just changed the specific terms that you (mistakenly) thought to be proper nouns. Please undo your reversion. Thanks! Holy (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

text: "* Generic words for institutions, organizations, companies, etc., and rough descriptions of them</span> (university, college, hospital, high school) do not take capitals. . . " (MOS:INSTITUTIONS)  Holy (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... no. You mixed in over 50 different changes with one edit. Some caps, some dashes, but all minor. I don't agree with all your changes from caps, and I think that you should have proposed some of the changes beforehand. The thing to do now is to let the last version stand as is, and wait for the community to weigh in, to see if there can be a consensus achieved on the issue. Then whatever changes are agreed upon, can then be implemented. There's no big fire to be put out here, we can allow ourselves some patience. -  theWOLFchild 19:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You just undid a large amount of good editorial work and copy editing, and you only seem to have a disagreement with a small number of the edits. And you haven't even bothered to answer my clear explanation—in which I applied Wikipedia standards—for why your interpretation was not correct, regarding those edits. So now we are waiting around for a discussion that may never occur, in which the crucial arguments will simply be what I've already put forth and what is clearly explained in longstanding Wikipedia policy (and is consistent with almost every other style standard in the English-speaking world). After that discussion, someone will have to go back and make all the same edits that I originally spent time on. Since you initiated this dispute, made a huge reversion to my editing efforts, have not yet discussed the issues at hand, and dismiss my asking you to undo the reversion, what do you propose so that we may go forward? Holy (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

text: What's to respond to? Nothing has changed. There has been no consensus in support of all your de-capitalizations. If you want to redo the minor punctuation changes, such as dashes, etc., go ahead (they should've been done separately anyway) but there is no support thus far for your requested change (re: UCC → ucc). - theWOLFchild 19:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Military writing is notorious for overusing capitalization and for inconsistency of style and format. It's also notorious for its inconsistency with style standards that are generally accepted by the rest of the world. The DoD style guide is NOT Wikipedia's style guide or standard. Even in the style guide that you cite, it's very easy to find inconsistencies, even in the same sentence. Here's an example: " “COCOM” refers to “(combatant command) command authority” and not to the Combatant Command itself." In this single sentence, the guide uses combatant command generically twice, and uses title case once and sentence case in the other! One of the nearby section titles (also note that the guide uses title case for section titles, which Wikipedia does not do) is "Acronyms That Don’t Need to be Established." Note that the verb be is left in lowercase, but since it is not an article or a short preposition or conjunction, it should be capitalized when using title case. This violates most other style standards, including Wikipedia's. In summary, it's easy to see that your cited style guide is not appropriate here, and even contradicts itself routinely. Holy (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caps 

message: Israel should be under the color for EUCOM, not CENTCOM. The current map is incorrect. See http://www.eucom.mil/about/the-region  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.246.254.12 (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect map 

message: United States Space Command was reestablished today, but I can't find any sources as to whether it is a geographic or functional command. Anyone know? Jak525 (talk) 21:17, Thursday, August 29, 2019 (UTC)
Given that space itself is not a subject of geography, I would not consider it possible that its "geographic". Added as functional. 24.4.13.32 (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That report is from December 2018. At the time it was anticipated to be functional. When it was established in 2019 it was a geographic command. More up to date sources can be found on its website.Garuda28 (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Command: functional or geographic 

message: Proposing move to Combatant command as they can either be unified (forces from multiple services) or specified (forces from only one). This article already covers both and matches DoD usage (https://www.defense.gov/About/combatant-commands/). Although their are currently no specified commands active (Strategic Air Command being the last), they are still covered in this article and could be reactivated. Garuda28 (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose move to Combatant command 

message: Proposal to change the map of the different regions of jurisdiction to include Israel as part of Central Command. I haven't verified this, but the Wikipedia article on Central Command says that Israel was added to its jurisdiction in 2021. Placeholderer (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating Map for Central Command?