Talk:Tactic (method)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Combine into Military tactics[edit]

Despite the "keep" decision, I think this page is insufficient to stand on its own. I would rather see the this pages discussion of the differences between "tactics" and "strategy" covered on the Military tactics page and this one dismantled. That would salvage the information but satisfy the wiki best practice of convergence. ~PNT 03/09/06


Unrelated[edit]

I wish there was a posting of tactical signals because my airsoft team needs to use tactics in airsoft wars/tournaments. Kelloth march 6 2005

Deletion[edit]

I have submitted this article for deletion, as it is wholly worthless and should be rewritten by someone who can both write coherently and understands the topic. 67.72.98.93 11:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged it with {{cleanup-rewrite}} which is the policy-approved response to such a messy article. AfD remains live, however... Georgewilliamherbert 01:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My deletion nomination[edit]

That was me (I forgot to sign in when I nominated). Articles like this will push some of us into Wiki-agnosticism; if one doesn't have faith in the Fundamental Theorem of Wikipedia, that is, that any moron with an Internet connection is entitled to have an opinion on any topic, then it's hard to keep orthodox. I say this wholly without heat, by the way. I like Wikipedia fine. Not deleting articles this poor, though, shows that Wikipedia erroneously believes "freedom" to be synonymous with "absence of any kind of intellectual standards." Don't be too mad at me; I don't believe in democracy either, as it happens. Dave1898 12:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from another user: Actually this article answered my question (the difference between tactic and strategy) nicely. I could not follow the quote by Michel de Whoever, so I just tuned it out. W. 4/26/2006

I've attempted a re-write which does justice to the subject[edit]

I'm no scholar, so I haven't followed the recent usages closely, but I believe my copy edit preserves the intent of the editor who added the reference. Unless someone objects in the next few days, I'll remove the rewrite tag. BusterD 20:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the US Military, there is a distinction made between Strategy, Operations, and Tactics. The article needs to reflect this. The distinction is unclear depending on how you look at it -- but it is basically one of hierarchy. Kind of like CEO - Middle Management - Workers.

The same is true in search and rescue and Incident Command System. --Una Smith (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tactic (method) → Tactic —

Move to tactic or tactics. Move content in Tactic to disambiguation page. Should be self explanitory. username 1 (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — The bareword "tactic" clearly is ambiguous; absent a clear primary topic, the disambiguation page should remain where it is. Judging by the scope of this article as defined in the lede, a more appropriate page name would be Tactic (concept). --Una Smith (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Tactic (method) → Tactic — This topic is the root word of all the topics on the disambiguation page. Thus it is the PRIMARY TOPIC. It is also consistent with strategy.--Marcus Qwertyus 22:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page shoud just be redirected to Tactic. Any useful information can be merged into the appropriate article, like military tactics, for example. Srnec (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a parent article. Marcus Qwertyus 07:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. There is a Wiktionary article that serves that purpose. The tactical wargame article and the tactical bombing article are both sub-articles of military tactics, while tactical politics is completely unsourced and in horrible condition, equating tactics with strategy. Besides the various uses of "Tactic" or "Tactics" as a name for something or other, this leaves only chess tactics as a different subject from military tactics, thus I now support a redirect of this to military tactics; a move of the latter to tactics plain and simple; and a move of our current tactic to tactic (disambiguation) with the original redirecting to tactics (military sense). It doesn't seem to me that there is any encyclopedic (as opposed to dictionary) topic for the term besides that encapsualted by the military sense. Even chess tactics has something to do with war, considering the origins of the game of chess. Srnec (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting proposal but a quick look at google books shows that there are many other applications for tactics that are worth documenting. There are tactics for tackling math problems, sports (+chess and cards), investing, and in general:fraud and trickery. You do bring up a good point that tactical politics would be better located at Political strategy though. Marcus Qwertyus 08:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My central point was that there isn't any encyclopedic topic for the term besides the military sense. The word is a general one. I can use it in myriad ways. I could even talk about my tactic in this little debate, but are debating tactics worth an encyclopaedia article? Only if there are reliable sources that treat them in that way (and maybe there are, since there is such a thing as argumentation theory and rhetoric, although neither is exactly the same as "debating tactics"). My contention is that only military tactics seems to be of encyclopaedic significance (as opposed to lexicographic significance—the meanings dictionary-makers care about). Google and GoogleBooks back this up substantially, and many non-military uses of the word are really just metaphors trading on the military sense, like the way I used it in reference to debating. (Note that chess tactics could even be a sub-article of a general [military] tactics article, since chess uses the same tactics–strategy distinction that is clearly abolished in our current "political tactics" article.) Srnec (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree that there is no scope for encyclopedic content at this level of generality, and that the content belongs in the specific articles, leaving this title as a redirect to tactic. Kanguole 02:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

}

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tactic (method). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

quote from Michel de Certeau makes little sense to me[edit]

<<determined by the absence of a proper locus>> - what does this mean?
<<The space of a tactic is the space of the other>> - what does this mean (did it mean "tactic is IN the space of the other", if so what does that mean?), or does it mean something that can be expressed more simply? Without meaning I can't even tell if it's true.
<<A tactic is deployed “on and with a terrain imposed on it ...>> terrain literally (in which case it's wrong), or metaphorically, in which case it's just saying a tactic has constraints on it, which is to state the bleedin' obvious.
<<...and organized by the law of a foreign power.”>> - literally, then no as that just a special case, or metaphorically then it's just another way of saying constraints exist.
I could go on, but I think this is pompous crap that should be nuked from orbit. Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.16.25 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition so I'm removing it. 80.41.23.233 (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy versus Tactic[edit]

Change of the content to:

{ Strategy is a set of choices aimed to provide required environment for performing an action required for achievement of a goal, while tactics are the specific actions, the strategy make the tactical options (in which efficiency can vary based on variables) available for selection.

In other words, tactic is a set of actions with certain requirements, aimed to achieve a goal, and strategy is a set of actions aimed to achieve a goal using the available resources. }

@User:MrOllie, the source are deleted/{not functioning} for a long time already so this point are nonsense, what parts of the text are hard to understand for you? (or is there any mistakes you can point out?). Ilias48rus (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially everything you added to the existing content. I don't understand your meaning at all. - MrOllie (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I practically "replaced" the previous content completely, i've found and fixed some syntax issues, the 1st description are formed from, and a shortened version of the Strategy description, reason and a matter of 2nd are now explained in itself:

{ Strategy is a set of choices aimed to provide a required environment for performing an actions required for achievement of a goal, while tactics are a sets of the specific actions, the strategy make the tactical options (which efficiency can vary based on the environment variables) available for selection.

The conceptual difference are in that the tactic is a set of actions which result depend on a certain requirements, aimed to achieve a goal, and strategy is a set of actions aimed to achieve a goal using the available resources. }

its no syntax/language errors here (things like "hard to read" are not applicable unless you offer a better sentences, since the previous content had a contradictions, that worse than a easiness of the text), so if you do not see any contradiction or an inconsistency with reliable sources, the change are considered correct. Ilias48rus (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The grammar is obviously incorrect, so the change cannot be 'considered correct', and I can't really offer better sentences when I don't understand what you are trying to communicate. - MrOllie (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the grammar are incorrect you cannot be unable to name any contradiction or inconsistency just in a terms of the language (relating to the language's term's/rules or words' meanings), the term "incorrect" mean this by it's matter. Ilias48rus (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your sentences are run-ons and your subjects and verbs do not agree. Your use of the idiom 'aim to' is very strange - I don't think a native speaker would ever use it with the perfect tense. But the bigger problem is that I can't tell what you're trying to say, which is not really curable by tweaking grammar. - MrOllie (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "aimed to" with "aiming at"(as in the page's 1st paragraph) -- its unknown for me why the 1st version can be not correct, but ive changed it. All Ideas are separated in the run-on sentences correctly. I've moved 1 verb, now all the predicative adjectives in the 1st sentence are connected to the nouns in a same way as in the initial content( .. used to ..).

{ Strategy is a set of choices used to provide an environment required for performing an actions required for achievement of a goal, while tactics are a sets of the specific actions, the strategy make the tactical options (which efficiency can vary based on the environment variables) available for selection.

The conceptual difference are in that the tactic is a set of actions which result depend on a certain requirements, aiming at achievement of a goal, and strategy is a set of actions aiming at achievement of a goal using the available resources. }

The point seems clear, but in case you do not understand -- for example when you think about managing a resources to make achievement of a goal possible its a strategy, when you think about performing an action to achieve a goal its a tactic. Anything else? Ilias48rus (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also tell how do you think, is there a sence in adding the example i provided, to the topic as a 3rd sentence? p.s. before changing position of the "environment"'s "required" the next "for" was connecting the previous {"used" with a predicative part} and the next "performing", as far i see its no language mistake here. Ilias48rus (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that all questions/concerns have been answered/solved? Ilias48rus (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No your changes haven't really fixed anything. There is no consensus for your change. I suggest we wait for some additional editors to comment. - MrOllie (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the 1st edit's comment i've already described wrongfulness of the initial content/version (the contradiction and equal meaning), the my version has no confirmed mistakes of any type, you are free to additionally add any version as it's source's author's point of view according to the "neutral point of view" WP:Pillar, but unless you base-fully highlight a mistake in the new version, your revert of it will be a subject of WP:EW violation. As of the current state i've covered/incorporated all of your stated concerns. Ilias48rus (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This contribution is incoherent and that hasn't been 'covered'. Frankly, I'm concerned that you are unable to recognize this yourself. - MrOllie (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of my discussion points/statements are detailed and with a described bases, you have forced this size of discussion by asking for the explanation and fixes. Further if you unable to substantiate your point of view its you are not competent enough to manage the subject in accordance to the WP:CIR that you've linked. p.s. i've used "covered" in a meaning of "enclosed within something" and a "reason" as the "something", even though it actually doesn't matter because my word selection preferences in a discussion are not related to the theme while do not violate the WP:Terms. Ilias48rus (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll submit a request for a third opinion. Please wait for it before continuing to edit war. - MrOllie (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed edit [1] doesn't make sense to me; it's confusing to read and appears to be repetitive, rather than a concise definition of strategy. It also lacks any references so it came across as original research rather than a factual description of strategy. Recommend to not keep it in. — Marcus(talk) 00:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

Response to third opinion request:
I removed this entry because the dispute is between more than two editors. Consider opening a thread at WP:DRN. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 14:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WTF are you talking about? The dispute above is clearly between only two editors - Ilias48rus and MrOllie - to which I responded as a third party. Honestly, bloody desk jockeys on here are a joke... — Marcus(talk) 03:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tactic_(method)&oldid=1203715732"