DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác


Mannerheim's height

[edit]

The article states:

The handsome young Baron towered over his classmates, standing 6 ft 4 in (1.93 m).

Shouldn't an article about a Finnish man attending a Finnish cadet school for the Russian army cite his height in metric first? Or does the cited source actually only give his height in imperial units? JIP | Talk 21:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also what source says he's 193 cm? Finnish sources say always he's more like 187cm instead. 2001:14BB:64B:DE40:8118:E1AF:AF5E:AAC3 (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place of birth in infobox

[edit]

Hi, I oppose omitting "Russian Empire" in |birth_place= in the infobox. Mannerheim was a citizen of the Russian Empire until 1917, and per MOS:INFONAT, we should make sure these people's countries of birth are visible if we omit |citizenship=. Let's not misuse MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Thedarkknightli (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Mellk (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not long ago I had checked the article and it was there, today saw that someone had tweaked that. I was going to kick up a bit of a fuss here but it looks like someone beat me to it. I have restored it to what it was like a couple of months ago. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again guys, |birth_place=Askainen, Finland, Russian Empire is sufficient IMHO cuz 1) MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states, "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Some infoboxes need to use more than a handful of fields, but information should be presented in a short format wherever possible, and should exclude unnecessary content." 2) I don't see a consensus that we should include "Louhisaari manor". Thanks. Thedarkknightli (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about writing simply "Finland" for the administrative division, rather than "Grand Duchy of Finland". I would think it would also look a bit odd if we did the same thing for other administrative divisions e.g. republics of the USSR ("Russia, Soviet Union" rather than "Russian SFSR, Soviet Union"). Mellk (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw about Jean Sibelius' infobox as discussed per RfC: Talk:Jean Sibelius/Archive 3#Infobox? resulted in stale, which is not to include "Russian Empire", it could be minimal. Absolutiva 02:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem ideal because it falsely implies that Finland was independent then. Mellk (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Finland wasn't independent, but its status wasn't similar to a province or an USSR republic. I think using the same techniques as those used for normal provinces or USSR republics might create a misleading impression about the Grand Duchy of Finland's distinct and special status within the Russian Empire. Also the name Grand Duchy of Finland already states that it belonged to Russian Empire. Dresson354 (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if the average reader would know this. Would you write "Austria" or "Hungary" instead of "Austria-Hungary"? Mellk (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would not write that instead of "Austria-Hungary". But, as I mentioned, I think we should not compare to that. Each historical case is individual. Finland had it's own identity distinct from Russia. Country doesn't need to be an independent to be a separate entity.
Would you agree that Grand Duchy of Finland was not like a province or USSR republics? Dresson354 (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) Grand Duchy of Finland should be mentioned as such as it was a very particular subdivision of the Russian Empire. "Finland" on its own simply does not capture this situation, and it also runs the risk of confusing an uninformed reader about the fact that Finland was not, in fact, independent at the time. On this point I am quite adamant. Regarding 2), I am somewhat agnostic about including Louhisaari manor, however, while the manor itself is within the legal borders of Askainen, it is not in the town itself (it is in fact closer to other towns than to Askainen). I think it is informative to include it, especially since we actually have an article on it (i.e. it is not a random place added to the article). I am happy to continue discussing this. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well @Absolutiva, consensus can change, and that discussion took place more than nine years ago. I've just notified WikiProject Finland BTW. Thedarkknightli (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again guys, I've just opened a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. The thread is #Grand Duchy of Finland. Thanks, Thedarkknightli (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again guys, I think it's worth noting that writing "Grand Duchy of Finland" instead of simply "Finland" triples the unit's length, while writing "Russian SFSR" instead of simply "Russia" doesn't; and TBH, I don't see how |birth_place=..., Finland, Russian Empire implies Finland was independent at the time. I mean, we have INFOBOXPURPOSE and do include "Russian Empire" in the parameter. Thedarkknightli (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since there has not really been any additional input and I doubt the other editors will change their mind, it may be better to go for RfC instead. Mellk (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, would you mind if I take this to WP:DRN? Thedarkknightli (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind. I guess that is an alternative route. Mellk (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, may I ask about your reasoning for being continuously eager to modify the birthplaces of 19th-century Finnish individuals? I don’t mean this as an accusation, but from my perspective it looks like an attempt to shadow Finnish history, and in particular attempt to downplay the status of the Grand Duchy.
I do appreciate that you’re approaching this through discussion rather than edit wars. If there’s a fair way to handle this, I’m fully in favor of working toward a consensus. However, I don't believe WP:DRN will change how most editors see Finnish history. Dresson354 (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but from my perspective it looks like an attempt to shadow Finnish history, and in particular attempt to downplay the status of the Grand Duchy No, I'm not tryna do that. While I'm not sure about Sibelius's case now, I definitely think it's necessary to include "Russian Empire" in Mannerheim's case cuz the latter notably served in the Imperial Russian Army. Thedarkknightli (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point and I do agree that Mannerheim's relations and ties to the Russian Empire were more close than other's such as Sibelius. However, let's not spread this practice all over on all Finnish 19th century people.
On that note, I would also like to note that Mannerheim had a Finnish citizenship and despite his close ties to the Russian Empire, he was still born originally in the Grand Duchy of Finland with Finnish citizenship. [1] So, If you'd like to bring his ties to Russian Empire more visible on the info box, I'd suggest to not use "birth place" any further more as it is.
And honestly, the info box already mentions Russian Empire both in "birth place" and "allegiance", so I don't really understand why would we put more "Russian Empire" there. Dresson354 (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What're you talking about? I'm definitely not tryna "spread this practice all over on all Finnish 19th century people" or 'put more "Russian Empire" there'. Instead, I'm merely tryna improve Mannerheim's |birth_place=. Also, Finland was not independent when he was born, with which you explicitly agree; while I admit I was ignorant about the citizenship part, I really don't see how his Finnish citizenship matters on this issue. I mean, I'm not proposing we omit GDoF from the parameter. Thedarkknightli (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but you've been trying to push same things in the Sibelius talk page and Manual of Style/Infoboxes. If you merely want to improve Mannerheim's page, given your argumentation of his close relations with the Russian Empire, I don't understand why you push same ideas to other places.
To me, your suggestions and commenting patterns seem to look like you want to push same idea to all people of 19th century that were born in Finland.
And as I've already mentioned, I agree that Mannerheim's relation to Russian Empire was different and more close. If your intention is to modify Mannerheim's article, make sure you explain that and please don't spread same stuff all around to articles that are not related to Mannerheim.
What comes to Finnish citizenship, it plays a big role in this case. It defines who he originally was. So I don't really agree with your point that it doesn't matter. Dresson354 (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was he all that authoritarian?

[edit]

Given he obliged the republic in 1919 when he could have been king, he clearly wasn't all that power hungry. I don't feel this is reflected in the opening lines regarding his personality. 176.75.4.191 (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on how to format place of birth in infobox

[edit]

How should we format his place of birth in the infobox?

Thedarkknightli (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Additional options added. Thedarkknightli (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • A, given MOS:IBP, his notable service in the Imperial Russian Army, this comment, and that writing "Grand Duchy of Finland" rather than simply "Finland" triples the unit's length. Thedarkknightli (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • F originally E. We usually include three levels: locality, region, and sovereign state. The format "Finland, Russian Empire" implies that "Finland" refers to the Grand Duchy, making the more cumbersome "Grand Duchy of Finland" unnecessary. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that GDoF was not a "region", that's why I highly oppose E for example Dresson354 (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "Region" is a very generic term, it can even refer to supranational areas, e.g. Northern Europe. In this context, it refers to a territorial entity which is less than a sovereign state, but more than a locality. The Grand Duchy fits this description since it was autonomous, but not sovereign. If you dispute the claim that Finland was part of the Empire, please state this directly. I am not entirely convinced that this three-tier structure is optimal; however, revising it would require a more general discussion, and until then, it should be followed. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am not claiming that Finland was not part of an Empire. It was indeed. Nor I am trying to say that it was independent at the time. I agree, it definitely wasn't.
    However I don't really like to generalize term "region" in this context, since it clearly directs to a region that is "integral part of a country". Grand Duchy of Finland was not intergal part of the Russian Empire. Meaning that it was not some region of a country. GDoF existed as separate non-integrated entity.
    Also worth noting, that I think we can't compare modern world autonomous regions such as Åland in Finland to what GDoF was within the Russian Empire. Dresson354 (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The concept not addressed here is that of an empire, which is an aggregate of many separate states or territories under a supreme ruler or oligarchy. This differs from a modern unitary state, which you seem to refer to with the Åland example. Empires are inherently non-uniform and their constituent parts may operate under different legal systems, as was the case with the Grand Duchy of Finland and Congress Poland (especially before 1867) within the Russian Empire. The question, then, is how non-sovereign states within empires should be treated under this infobox formula. The obvious (and the most common) solution is to use locality, non-sovereign state, empire, and there is no special reason why Finland should deviate here. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that Russian Empire was not a unitary state. However, this is not “an excuse” to label GDoF as “region“. My main concern here is that such options (like E) give wrong historical impression of Finland significantly downgrading what GDoF as an entity was.
    Also, even with Russian Empire generally not being an unitary state. It is very much false to say that all of Russian Empire used to consist of same or similar entities as GDoF.
    I'd like to add here that you are right about Congress Poland, however at the same time I'd like to point out that even before 1867, when there were some similarities between GDoF and Congress Poland, GDoF still enjoyed more freedom for example. Dresson354 (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If we begin to consider a "degree of autonomy," what objective criteria should we use? Which indicators of autonomy would suffice to justify omitting the empire? Finland's autonomy also increased over time, so would there be a cutoff year before which the Russian Empire is included and after which it is omitted? That approach quickly becomes arbitrary. It is better to keep the criteria simple (i.e. sovereignty). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I must respectfully disagree on that.
    Again, treating the Grand Duchy of Finland as “merely autonomous” flattens important and actual differences between it and other actual parts of the Russian Empire. GDoF had its own laws, institutions, currency, customs and a distinct constitutional status that went well beyond ordinary administrative autonomy, even if it wasn't fully sovereign.
    My point is simply that treating GDoF like a generic region gives a misleading picture of what it actually was, since it functioned as a distinct entity for pretty much all of its existence, even during periods of instability such as russification.
    And, I don't really think that "simplicity" is a good excuse to leave out important parts. Dresson354 (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Merely autonomous? What would it mean to be more than autonomous—independent?
    own laws, institutions: As already stated above, the Russian Empire was not legally or administratively homogeneous, particularly before the late nineteenth century. In Europe, regions not fully integrated into the imperial system included Finland and Poland, as well as the Baltic Governorates and Bessarabia; other arrangements existed in the Caucasus and other borderlands. These regions had distinct laws and/or institutions.
    There were also limits to the Finnish autonomy. The highest authority in Finland was the Russian governor-general. The Diet did not have the power to pass laws, that power was retained by the emperor. Finland did not have its own foreign policy. The idea of a distinct constitutional status (often describes as a real union with Russia under a constitutionally bound monarch) is generally regarded as a legal fiction in modern Finnish scholarship.
    The symbolism associated with Finnish institutions is illustrative of Finland's status. There was the Imperial Senate of Finland (Kejserliga senaten för Finland), the Imperial Alexander University (Kejserliga Alexanders Universitetet) etc., that is, everything was "Imperial". Finland did not have its own flag, and the greater coat of arms includes the Russian two-headed eagle. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry but it seems we're just repeating same stuff over and over.
    Your arguments about names and governing systems in GDoF do not support your point in my view. The monarch of GDoF was Russian Emperor, for sure there were the names of the Emperor or "imperial" in country's institutions such as University etc...
    Russian Emperor acted as head of Finland's statehood. GDoF was more bond to the Emperor than to Russia as country itself. Although I am not going to speak about "true personal union" here since different historians have different opinions on that.
    But, GDoF had it's own legal government with broad internal political power. For sure, government of Finland at that time could not pass any big or concrete laws or changes without Emperor's approval which typically happened through governor general as he acted as sort of "link" between government of Finland and Russian Emperor. So, I think your not correct on that. Diet of Finland had power to pass the laws, however most of the times or more significant laws had to go through Emperor's eyes. In addition, the foreign policies of GDoF still existed in a form of relations with Russian Empire and also in some limited forms to other countries.
    Now what comes to "autonomous" terminology. I think it is not reasonable to compare GDoF to Baltic Governorates, Caucasus or Bessarabia and other such areas.The status (both political and lawful) of GDoF was significantly different than in those regions'. For example Baltic Governorates were integrated into Russian Empire and were functioning (lawfully and politically) as integral regions, and not like "statehood", "country" or "state". Yes they did have "some separate institutions", but it is again not reasonable to compare to GDoF since Finland didn't just have "some separate institutions". The only comparable case to GDoF was Congress of Poland until 1867 as you mentioned earlier. Dresson354 (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I must correct myself that it is true that how Finns viewed GDoF differed on how Russians saw it. So my terminology "lawfully" might not be exactly accurate in this matter. But my point is still that despite on how people viewed GDoF, as a fact, it enjoyed a unique "statehood" status and cannot be compared to Russian regions in any matter. Dresson354 (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a quotation on the limits of the power of the Diet: The Diet had merely an advisory role in relation to the monarch: the estates' task was mainly to examine, negotiate and approve or reject propositions of the emperor prepared by the Senate of Finland and to present their wishes in the form of humble petitions. Individual members of the estate did not have the right to introduce motions and the estates were not given the right until 1886.[2] It is much more limited than what you present, especially before 1886.
    The comparison to other provinces of the empire is relevant as it illustrates that while Finland grew exceptionally autonomous, the features that characterize that autonomy were not unique to it:
    • When Finland was joined to Russia, the estates pledged allegiance to the emperor, and the emperor promised to uphold the privileges and the local laws—this was common at the time and also happened in the Baltic provinces.
    • The emperor bypassed the Russian central administration when dealing with Finland. The same also happened for Bessarabia and Poland.
    • Like Finland, Poland also issued its own currency, Polish złoty.
    • Finland had the Diet; Poland had the Sejm, and the Baltic Governorates had the Landtags.
    I agree that Poland is the most similar case. For comparison, the birthplace of Marie Curie (who was also born in 1867) is presented as "Warsaw, Congress Poland, Russian Empire". Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your point about Diet. I might have been too "bold" with my expressions about it. It is true that it was limited and after all the Emeror directly controlled the Diet, that's true indeed.
    But again, I don't agree on your comparisons to the provinces nor I really can accept the term "province" to describe GDoF.
    The Diet of Finland had significantly different powers and political influence in general than local governments in the provinces such as Baltic governorates.
    For example, here's a quote regarding the status of GDoF. Full article can be found here
    "Russia planned at first to annex Finland directly as a province of the Russian Empire, but in order to overcome the Finns’ misgivings about Russian rule, Tsar Alexander I offered them the following solution. Finland was not annexed to the Russian Empire but was joined to Russia instead through the person of the tsar. In addition, Finland was made an autonomous state–the Grand Duchy of Finland–with its inherited traditions intact."
    Your point about Marie Curie says that her birthplace was marked with full spelling of "Congress Poland". The option E includes only "Finland", this creates a big confusion on how people see "Finland" there. Some people indeed link it directly to GDoF in their minds, but some don't. So, for people who don't know history of Finland too well, this might seem as just a "regular province" or regular part of a country. Dresson354 (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Diet of Finland had significantly different powers and political influence in general than local governments in the provinces such as Baltic governorates. Please stop guessing. In fact, the Langtag of each province had a "broad mandate to decide on everything that relates to the rights, interests, and institutions of the corporation [of the nobility] or the welfare of the whole land." (Kasekamp 2010) I am not aware of a comparative study.
    • Earlier, you also claimed that the foreign policies of GDoF still existed in a form of relations with Russian Empire and also in some limited forms to other countries, which is nonsense. The relation to Russia was not a "foreign relation", and no country had diplomatic relations with Finland before 1918.
    • I've no idea what point you are trying to make with the quote.
    • Regarding "Finland, Russian Empire" versus "Grand Duchy of Finland, Russian Empire", I've reconsidered my earlier stance and I agree with @1brianm7 that the full name is clearer.
    Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If "Grand Duchy of Finland, Russian Empire" and "Finland, Russian Empire" to be compared, I also agree that the first format is much more accurate and better.
    "Please stop guessing" I don't really understand why you think I am guessing. Let's not accuse each other, let's keep this discussion polite and respectful. And respectfully, nor I really can understand why you seem to disagree on a fact that Diet of Finland had more power and political influence than the regions.
    I did mention that foreign relation of GDoF existed as in a form of relations with Russian Empire. And that there was also some limited foreign relations to others than Russian Empire. Please note that I said "existed in a form", I did not claim that it was lawfully as such. For Grand Duchy of Finland foreign relation was relation with Russian Empire even though Duchy's foreign relations were controlled by St. Petersburg.
    What comes to my claim about limited foreign relations to others, I did not mean directly "diplomatic relations". Here I agree that I might have formed my words a bit weirdly. But, what I mean with limited foreign relations, is that the recognition of GDoF as an entity was present in other countries as well, again not on a diplomatic level nor recognition as a sovereign state. But for instance, Finland did participate in Paris expo 1900 independently. [3] Dresson354 (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Finland officially participated to the 1900 Expo as part of Russia. The entrance to the pavilion had the incription SECTION RVSSE – PAVILLON FINLANDAIS.[4] In many published photographs, however, this wording was retouched to display only PAVILLON FINLANDAIS.[5] The Paris Expo tells us that Finland wanted to be seen as a culturally independent nation, not that it was one in any administrative sense. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You correctly pointed out about retouched naming of a pavilion. However, the fact that it was retouched to display Finland only already tells a lot.
    "Finland officially participated to the 1900 Expo as part of Russia". That's not entirely true, nor the pavilion was inside Russian pavilion. As a fact, the pavilions of Finland and Russia were in different locations far from each other. Pavilion of Finland stood in the "Street of Nations".[6] The fact that there was originally planned to be written "Section Rvsse" and that technically it participated under Russian Empire, does not change my point, since I said that the pavilion of Finland was there as a separate exhibition building and presented a spearate entity.
    That being said, I agree that Finland was not a sovereign state, and was still under Russian Empire. But, I think you're confusing that only sovereign nations can be nations and have cultural independence. This is simply not true, GDoF was not sovereign nation, but had such qualities.
    It seems that we both continue to disagree with each other. My original reply was more related to an option E, but since you agreed that the "Grand Duchy of Finland, Russian Empire" option is better, I don't really see that this dispute is relevant anymore.
    I do understand that you have a different opinion, but I do not agree with your points. Dresson354 (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It was only the photos that were retouched, not the actual pavilion. If the full name GDoF was the main issue here, does that mean that, while you still prefer to omit "Russian Empire," you are not strongly opposed to its inclusion? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't confirm that "only photos" were retouched e.g. redacted.
    Yes my main concern here was lack of inclusion of the full name of GDoF. And while I still strongly prefer options with GDoF only, such as "Askainen, Grand Duchy of Finland", I am not strongly opposing the inclusion of Russian Empire in Mannerheim's infobox as long as the options are B or F, since this format has been already used here before all these surveys and long repetitive talks that weren't even started by me. Dresson354 (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • F - Most appropriate. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • F or G, preference F. The building seems entirely unimportant infobox-wise. I think including the name of the historic polity is wise, and I don't think we can assume readers will get the implication Jähmefyysikko mentioned. 1brianm7 (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • G or C are the most appropriate options. They are clean, the name GDoF already implies to the relations with Russian Empire, and the options are respecting the special semi-independent status of GDoF within the Empire. The same formats are also commonly used. Dresson354 (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • C or B, preference C. Manor building, as the most exact location, should remain mentioned (and linked) as it's deemed article-worthy. As for the Grand Duchy, I think it's worth noting the difference from the modern state. - Neptuunium (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • F is probably the best. 3 levels are more than enough. Alaexis¿question? 11:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • F or failing the the status quo B. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • F, Finland was officially a part of the Russian Empire, so this should be mentioned. A birthplace with four items is against the Template:Infobox_person, which states, Place of birth: city, administrative region, country. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • B or F.(Summoned by bot) Personally, in this context I do not see the harm of an extra layer of granularity to that parameter of the box, particularly considering the residence in question is notable enough to have its own article. I do not consider recommendations in the documentation of the infobox itself as a particularly compelling argument here: WP:LOCALCONSENSUS governs the content of this particular article, be it in the infobox or anywhere else, and there's no reason why a common sense exception to the general guidance shouldn't be adopted here. That said, the difference between the inclusion or absence of the fourth level of specificity for that field is not a major issue, and the more important question being asked here, imo, is the format of the broader levels for describing the locality, and both B and F adopt the best format in that respect. SnowRise let's rap 09:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

It is redundant to include both Louhisaari Manor and Askainen, both of which are local designations. One of them should be omitted, although I have no strong preference as to which. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is some uncertainty as to what Askainen exactly refers to. It is not a municipality, since that was only founded in 1876. Contrary to what this article claims, it also cannot have been a parish, since Askainen Parish was founded in 1910. In 1867, Askainen appears to have been a chapel community (kappeliseurakunta) and its associated village, consisting of the immediate surroundings of Louhisaari Manor (the church is very close to the manor). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]