Template talk:Campaignbox Second Sino-Japanese War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Template	This page is a Template and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this template... NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.

Thanks to Skyfiler for copying this campaignbox over to zhwiki here. A copious amount of cross references would come in very handy.

The Battle of Nanchang(南昌会战 ) links to 1927 Nanchang Uprising(南昌起义), and should not be included in Second Sino-Japanese War.--Skyfiler 19:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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? --Miborovsky 22:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

changed the order... Battle of Nanchang followes Battle of Wuhan...--Skyfiler 17:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

OK Battle of Changde done...
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 01:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Beiping-Tianjin and Battle of Shanggao are now blue! 9 to go!
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 05:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

changed Battle of Nanchang the 11th Division should be 11th ArmyAsiaticus 11:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC) I have a pretty complete oob for both sides and more details on the battle to add.

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. BlueShirts 21:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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. LordAmeth 22:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we gotta have Japanese invasion of Manchuria then. -- Миборовский 22:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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. BlueShirts 22:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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:

Manchuria (Mukden - Liaoling-Jiling - Helongjiang - Jinzhou-Harbin)

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. BlueShirts 22:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 | Talk 03:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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. Asiaticus 08:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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 | Talk 02:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Chagny 04:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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. Blueshirts 06:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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 Chagny 12:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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}}). Kirill 15:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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 Chagny 19:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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. Kirill 19:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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 Chagny 03:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's a good idea; what do you think of my current attempt? Kirill 04:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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 Chagny 15:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)