Talk:Manchukuo

"Puppet state"

A search of Google Books Manchukuo + Puppet shows "Puppet State" as the common usage, such as the standard monograph Louise YoungJapan's Total Empire, and Janet Hunter Concise Dictionary (U California Press 1984) p. 118. ch (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I noticed that the Northeast Supreme Administrative Council (NSAC) has its own article, but it currently conveys only a small amount of information that could quite easily be worked into the article on Manchukuo. It seems that the NSAC itself represented little more than a gestation period in the creation of the State of Manchuria, lasting barely two weeks, and may not be notable enough on its own to exist as a separate article, least of all in its present state. As such, I'm proposing that the text from the NSAC article be merged into the article on Manchukuo. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the current content, I agree a merge makes sense, perhaps into a new subsection of the History section. If more content comes up in the future, this could be reassessed. CMD (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, there is a lot more information that could be added about this subject, like its composition, tasks, how it was received. For now it's a stub but it could be expanded. As it's an important council in the formation of the Manchurian state but before it was created I think that it's separate enough to not be merged into this. A merger would make a lot more sense if the Northeast Supreme Administrative Council wasn't notable by itself, but from what I can tell it is. --Donald Trung (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

A merge would throw nothing out. CMD (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The phrase was meant metaphorical, the issue is that we'd be merging one notable subject with another. If the other article wasn't independently notable then a merger would be good to preserve the content in a relevant article, but if the subject is historically significant enough to warrant its own article then the size of that article is irrelevant. In fact merging might prevent the content to be expanded as it would violate "WP:UNDUE WEIGHT" to add too much information about a sub-subject to a page when that page can have something specialised. That is, I don't see anything that we'd gain from merging these two articles, a stub can easily be expanded in the future but a section has to stay relevant to the main subject. That is that we'd simply increase the threshold for someone (especially an inexperienced editor) to want to add information about the Northeast Supreme Administrative Council that wouldn't really be relevant in the Empire of Manchuria article. --Donald Trung (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The size of an article is very relevant, it plays a large role in determining usefulness for a reader. A bad stub can be much less helpful than a section within a larger article providing context. Expansion can easily happen either way. If you want to expand it now, please go ahead, as it would render this discussion quite moot. Otherwise, a fuller version can always be created at any time. CMD (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Given the NSAC page remains basically a paragraph after many months, and already partially duplicative of text here, I have merged it into this article. It actually seems to fill a couple of holes in the current narrative, and the sourcing helped replace one unsourced item. As noted above, this is not an impediment to a future expansion on the topic. CMD (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

As the author of the NSAC, can you at least include the infobox I've had for the NSAC in the section where it is mentioned in the Origins subsection? Thanks. MarsandCadmium (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

That wouldn't really work, infoboxes are intended for the lead and the article is very cluttered already. I believe all the sourced information is in the merged text. CMD (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)