Talk:Cabbage tactics

Merge to Swarming (military)
The article appears to be about a singular term - which does not have sustained coverage in of itself. The sources cited predominantly cover the wider issue of territorial disputes in the south china sea, and a WP:BEFORE search indicates that there is little SIGCOV of the tactic in of itself, and instead discusses it as a subset of swarming tactics, and, and in the context of territorial disputes in the SCS in general.

I propose that the article is merged into the swarming article, as a subsection. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 00:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It would appear to be distinct from swarming. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, could you explain how so? "Cabbage tactics" appear to be a term for China's use of small boats to swarm objects in disputed territories in the south china sea. I don't see how this would not be a subset of swarming tactics in general, and in the absence of any substantive coverage on cabbage tactics sui generis, I don't see why this article should be sustained as an independent article. Best, BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 07:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The layering aspect is distinct (also I’m not sure where you get small boats from, we’re not generally talking about small boats when we talk about Cabbage tactics... The smallest ships are still rather large), I will also note that we do appear to have sustained substantive coverage of the issue itself and our sources treat Cabbage tactics as distinct from swarming. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Retain: I am a long-term IP. This is first ever time I came across editors "BrxBrx" and "Horse Eye's Back" and this "Cabbage tactics" article (via "China's salami slicing" article), i.e. all 3 are unrelated and new to me. I go with argument. Retain both articles. Sources mention the term. Lets say, even if definitions are generalised in a way that it is treated as a sub-type of wider and generic term "swarming", it must be retained as a separate article as it covers country-specific history as well. This is future-proof approach which paves the way for better enrichment of both articles through future organic growth. As a reader, I would like to see both articles retained, satiate the thirst for deeper/detailed understanding/reading. As an editor, I prefer the same, i.e. capture generic concepts under "wider catch all 'swarming' article" and have specifics of major incidences or series of incidences as separate articles, just like war is catch all generic article and we did not marge all war related articles into generic "war" article. Please keep generic article separate from specific articles, generic article could wikilink to specific articles with a short summary within generic article. Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Retain: 's arguments make sense to me. - Icomefromshamshuipo (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: There is literally nothing novel about the tactic as described in this article vs. Swarming (military), so what's the idea here? That every article is gonna have a "normal" version and a "China-hating" version? Take a hike. This is trash. Wipe, flush and wash your damn hands! 174.95.58.122 (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)