Talk:Command and control

Article status
As the disambiguation page so clearly demonstrates, this article is exceedingly weak considering the impressive detail of the articles on its implementation and subordinate concepts. AlexeiSeptimus 17:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

A place to start might be explaining and differentiating the concepts of command and control. Mang (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Command post
Doesn't really explain "command post", even though the latter is redirected to here. &mdash;151.198.251.15 (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation
I removed the article "Gold Silver Bronze command structure" from the disambiguation at the top of the page. I did some checking and it appears that "command and control" is not used as another term for "Gold Silver Bronze command structure". Instead, it appears that "command and control" is simply used when describing the "Gold Silver Bronze command structure". Therefore, it does not require disambiguation. -- Kjkolb (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Derivative terms
I deleted some of the superfluous alternative spellings or acronyms for C2, esp "ISTAR," which has not ever been a generally accepted term included in the acronym. Mostly its been C2, C3 or C4, with or without the "I" for intel and/or ISR to include surv. and recon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.112.109 (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Command_and_control&diff=prev&oldid=597523218 ''just cleaned up the alternative C2 acronym list, including deleting that silly "ISTAR" thing. As someone who's worked in C2 a very long time (30+ yrs) I can safely tell you that was never used as a general C2 reference by the C2 community''.

You seem to have mis-read / mis-understood what was written. These are derivative terms "which emphasise different aspects, uses and sub-domains of C2". They are  not  "terms which have been sometimes used instead". Your comments suggest you are only speaking from the US doctrine perspective. Please note that the Romans were using C2 long before US doctrine was written, and that many other perspectives using other terms and terminology exist. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * including deleting that silly "ISTAR" thing. - There are many who would disagree with such a categorisation of ISTAR.
 * As someone who's worked in C2 a very long time (30+ yrs) I can safely tell you that was never used as a general C2 reference by the C2 community. - Pardon? Why would anyone use "ISTAR" as a general C2 reference? That makes no sense. No-one other than you is implying that.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Command and control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081123014953/http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf to http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Command and control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100511155756/http://peoc3t.monmouth.army.mil/cp/cpsi_cpp.html to http://peoc3t.monmouth.army.mil/cp/cpsi_cpp.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)