This template is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 19:47, December 7, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
I see you've already changed it. I added a couple of redirects, so they shouldn't confuse anyone now. Incidentally, can someone verify the order of the battles here? --Miborovsky22:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the manchurian incident is appropriate here since the Mukden Incident article spends over half the space talking about what happened after the initial 9.18 incident. This includes the invasion of the northeastern provinces and the resulting lytton report. BlueShirts21:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Manchurian Incident vs Mukden Incident, both are as far as I am aware equally valid names for the same event; I certainly don't care whether the Campaignbox says "Manchuria" or "Mukden." But the event in question is not the invasion and occupation of Manchuria; that is not the focus nor the title of the linked article. LordAmeth22:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about that, since the mukden incident article covers the subsequent invasion. Unless we want to include another assortment of incidents (like the wanbaoshan incident) leading up to the main invasion of manchuria. BlueShirts22:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I prefer Mukden. This is what I think if you put Manchuria:
1. It would not match most of the format in the box. If you want to put Machuria, then you would have to remove Nenjiang Bridge. Even so, it would still be awkward because the individual section in the campaign box focus on the specific one campaign mostly.
2. In Asia, it is referred as the specific conflict of Mukden Incident that led to the entire Manchurian Incident. If in this way, you should not change it.
In European's mind, Mukden Incident and the Manchuria Incident is the exact same thing. If in this way, there's no need for you to change it.
3. If you put Manchuria, that would be in a general sense. In that way, you might as well just intergrate Marco Polo Bridge, Beiping-Tianjin, Chahar and Shanghai 1937 into "China" (1937 支那事変).
Replacing Mukden to Manchuria is almost the same thing as replacing Marco Polo Bridge to China Incident. Exaggerated, but that's my impression.
4. Kind of repeating 1.), but 満州事変 (Manchuria) is not just one campaign, but a series of invasion and events that branched out vastly. 柳条湖事件 (Mukden) is more appropriate to put in the campaign box.
AQu01rius 22:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
If you guys insisted on changing it to "Manchuria", I suggest to put it in this format:
Then rename, rewrite and extend the Mukden Incident article according to the Chinese wiki version.
AQu01rius 22:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's more appropriate to put sihang warehouse immediately after battle of shanghai, since they belong to the same battle. BlueShirts22:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Campaignbox is getting too big
This must now be one of the biggest campaignboxes in Wikipedia. I think subsidiary campaignbox/battleboxes for the Invasion of Manchuria, Operation Nekka, Shanghai (1937), Battle of Taiyuan, Wuhan, Canton, Suixian-Zaoyang, S. Guangxi, Winter Offensive, Yunnan-Burma Road and others should be created, so that subsidiary campaigns and battles can be removed from this one. Grant | Talk03:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because its big doesnt mean its too big. It shows the whole course of a huge 14 year struggle contained within that small box. Its just the right size. Maybe the others are too small. As you may guess I am opposed. Asiaticus08:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The campaignbox is now much larger than the text in some articles(!) and this is untenable. See Template:Campaignbox New Guinea and subsidiary campaignboxes (Salamaua-Lae, Finisterres, Huon Peninsula, Bougainville, New Britain and Admiralties) for an example of how this kind of thing can be organised. Grant | Talk02:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Organization
I'm going to be bold and organize the campaignbox into sections (e.g. began in 1931, began in 1936, etc.) This is similar to the sections in Template: WWIITheatre though the latter template organizes conflicts by region. I'm also adding "view" and "discussion" links. Count de Chagny04:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but I think it's better to just divide to pre-1937 and post-1937, since that's generally the agreed-upon begin date of full scale war. Blueshirts06:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to your suggestion, I've merged the 1931-1936 sections, this section can be renamed Pre-1937 if that's the consensus. I still believe that there are too many battles and campaigns after 1937 to be grouped into a single section. Thanks. Count de Chagny12:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting pretty convoluted in any case, and I suspect that there are a fair number of operations that aren't listed yet. The longer-term solution may be to actually split out the battles into several subsidiary campaignboxes, leaving this one to link across periods (similarly to, say, {{Campaignbox Napoleonic Wars}}). Kirill15:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do the breaks need to be forced through html? Wouldn't leaving non-html breaks in the edit pane make it easier for editors to recognize and view the breaks? The manual breaks also have a nice effect on the template itself and helps it take less space if you consider bytes. Thanks. Count de Chagny19:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, they also seem to break some of the formatting in the template itself (in particular, the line-height setting); note that the template renders differently depending on which form of break is used. Kirill19:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns about the formatting (e.g. line height of breaks), but my primary motivation for using non-html breaks is to make it easier for editors to see section breaks in the edit pane. If this can be done along with html breaks (via comment tag maybe?), the html breaks would be great. Count de Chagny03:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. Let's stick to that. Of course, when it becomes more cluttered (maybe 20-25 more entries?) the people that edit this box might consider branching it off into multiple boxes. Thanks. Count de Chagny15:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make up new words like "1st Manchuria" and "2nd Manchuria". The 1931 Manchurian Incident and the 1945 Operation August Storm are completely different things. Go to a library catalog or the back of a book index and you won't find "1st Manchuria" and "2nd Manchuria" listed. Blueshirts (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2601:85:c101:c9d0:c8f5:681b:5214:c75e(talk·contribs·WHOIS) The 1931-1937 battles that were included in this template were not mentioned as the full-scale war, that's the reason why I named it as local war, that is a name that is used in Chinese Wikipedia's article Second Sino-Japanese War use to call the Sino-Japanese conflict during those years. If you want to use suggest another name or not to put those battles in this template speak up, but don't merge them with the Template:Japanese colonial campaigns becuase that template is for wars and isolated battles. --2x2leax (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. I hope I didn't come off as random or aggressive, I am a dynamic IP so I appear as if this is the first time I've contributed. As to the issue at hand, the contention that the war began in 1931 is disputed, and most scholars place the start date at 1937, as what happened prior was specifically prewar. Full-scale fighting began in 1937. The 1931 start date, at least from what I can tell, has been largely pushed by the Chinese government as their preferred narrative. Not that that invalidates their claim. I believe the best course of action would be to not include the prewar battles, just as other war campaignboxes do not include prior incidents. As for those battles, I think perhaps a new campaignbox should be created to house them; you would be better suited to that since I am a dynamic IP. Thank you for your patience. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:C8F5:681B:5214:C75E (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's preferable to add them in my opinion as a prelude, there are templates that already do that and have no problem with showing battles prior to the declaration of war. --2x2leax (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
