Categorizing Tactics

Um, most of the things you listed are not tactics.

And you forgot skewers, X-rays, discovered attacks, double attacks, deflections, decoys, trapping pieces...

by ... I meant that there may be others. Like zugzwangs for example.

And I don't really know if others will agree or not. I know Susan Polgar does, as I got those examples from the chapter title to her book, Chess Tactics for Champions.

I'm sure others will be along to weigh in shorty.

Oh, and I'm not trying to be a richard here, if it comes of that way. 

Attraction
Back Rank Mate
Blocking
Capturing Defender
Clearance
Discovered Attack
Distraction
Double Attack
Exposed King
Fork
Hanging Piece
Interference
Overloading
Pin
Sacrifice
Simplification
Skewer
Smother
Trapped Piece
Weak Back Rank
X-Ray Attack
Zugzwang

Ok, heres a basic idea of tactics. Tactics are a way of gaining material, or checkmating your opponent. (I expect that in higher levels tactics could be used to get better positions? I am unsure.)

However, some of the things you listed come under Strategical rather than Tactical. Here are the things you listed:

Fork - Tactical

Pin - Tactical

Castle - Strategical

Rooks open file domination - Strategical

Bishops diagnol control - Strategical

Knight tactics- Same as forks, also discovered attacks

Pawn promotion - Not really either, just a move- underpromotion is a tactic

Center control- Strategical

Development- Strategical

Tempo- Strategical

As you can see, almost all the things you posted are not tactics. Most of the tactics have been posted earlier by rookandladder-

forks, pins, skewers, X-rays, discovered attacks, double attacks, deflections, decoys, trapping pieces (debatable), zugzwang, stalemate.

Ok. In chess, tactics are usually forced wins of material. Strategy, on the other hand, is playing to improve the positions of your pieces, so they are more effective (e.g. open files). One usually flows into the other, as if you play well strategically, tactics just seem to jump out for you!

This is how all Chess writer's use that terminology?

Aren't they equivalently important?

According to what you are saying they are both tactics - one I would say would be a positional tactic and one material.  Not one strategical and the other tactical.  Where does that terminology come from - the earliest Chess writers?  Ruy Lopez?  Damiano?

Threats and interference (interposition) come to mind as well.  What about luft, triangulation, opposition, waiting moves/zugzwang and zwischenzug? 

It is the language all chess-players use. Tactics force the win of material, or force the win. Strategy is all about the positioning of your pieces so that they are stronger.

Also pawn storms, pawn breaks and sacrifices (not real sacrifices, but tactical ones that have a clear benefit such as destroying king-cover or generally enabling another more lucrative tactic).

You my friend need to read some basic books on chess.  Your confusion surrounding tactical versus positional chess and the distinction between a tactic and a strategy are very fundamental concepts that are tought in countless books.  A couple such examples would be to pick up the books by Seirawan titled "Winning Chess Tactics" and "Winning Chess Strategies".  Read them both cover to cover.  Once you have finished this and now understand tactics versus strategies, move onto some good positional books by Silman such as Reassess your Chess or The Ameteur's Mind.  You will then have an understanding of the distinction between a tactical player and a positional player.

How about we add:

Zwischenzug

7th rank invasion

Desperado

Otherwise, TwistedLogic's list is pretty comprehensive.

Ok.  Thank you wiseachoo.

I'm not sure how you mean, Garymossu. Perhaps you mean the sections such as Double Attacks (e.g. forks, skewers) and Endgame (e.g. opposition, zugzwang) and then Drawing (e.g. perpetual check). In which case, yes they can be categorised and have been before.