Talk:Hemmema

Redundancy
As it now stands, the article details the hemmemas' armament in three places, the intro section, the design section, and the table. Can we not reduce this to one mention, or at most two? Personally, I would like to see the detail leave the intro paragraph at the very least. Acad Ronin (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's standard practice to summarize the contents of the article in the lead. It's a case of redundancy that isn't really a bured in an encyclopedia article. The table is a specification of individual vessels, which is a rather different presentation altogether.
 * The lead isn't particularly long or burdensome to read. The whole point of having it is to provide a type of useful redundancy.
 * Peter Isotalo 05:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Key is, "Summarize in the lead". A statement that the later hemmemas were larger, had more oars, were frigate-rigged and more heavily armed would do the job. Then in the Design and Construction section one could have a table with one row for Oden and one for the later types, complete with the unchanging details for the entire class (size, oars, and armament). One could also take the details out of the paragraph. Then the existing table could be stripped to the material that doesn't change from vessel to vessel, i.e., the name, launch year, shipyard, and history. Additionally, the text implies that  the two 1809 hemmemas had only ten pairs of oars, not 20. Which is correct, the table or the text?Acad Ronin (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed the 10-oar statement. It might have been a misreading, but if it's in Anderson, he's wrong. Both Nikula and Berg are the authorities on the archipelago fleet. Anderson's work is on oared warfare in general. Thanks for pointing it out.
 * I don't see any compelling arguments for removing redundancies that fit within the general framework of guidelines and policy. Being a bit obvious is not a problem in my interpretation. That goes especially for the table. Even though you linked all vessels, most (if any) will not have dedicated articles.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the italics, but we should be consistent throughout. If we have hemmemma without them, turuma should not have them either.
 * The red links serve as a signal that articles are wanted. Now that the following book is available, though unfortunately I don't have a copy, we can even hope for info on the post-capture history of those the Russians captured
 * Tredrea, John and Eduard Sozaev (2010) Russian Warships in the Age of Sail, 1696-1860. (Seaforth). ISBN 978-1-84832-058-1
 * In creating the red links for the vessels, would it be appropriate to prefix the names with "HSwMS"? There is a point in Royal Navy history before which it is not appropriate. I don't know anything about Sweden.
 * Lastly, I disagree with you about repetition of details. Details are only of interest to specialists and repeating them three times deadens the prose. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hemmema? Doesn't make sense
Could someone please change all the references from "hemmema" to the correct Hämenmaa (pronounced heəʳmenmaa for English speaking persons)? Hemmema does not exist, neither in Swedish nor Finnish. nor does it make any sense whatsoever in the title or within the article as such.

82.120.75.159 (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC) 82.120.75.159 (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Rear Admiral Silfverstråle


 * Check the sources then, or even SAOB. It was originally a 17th-century Swedish-langauge rendering of the Finnish word "Hämenmaa". That's no more incorrect than the Finnish renderings of the Swedish köping or Stockholm as kaupunki and Tukholma respectively.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

FACbot revert
I'm curious to know why Frietjes reverted FACbot's addition of this article's mainpage date. Did FACbot make a mistake of some kind? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mike Christie, if you inspect the diff you will see that there was already a maindate parameter, and FACBot decided to add a second one. I reported this to Hawkeye7, on the FACBot talk page, but it looks like the bug wasn't entirely fixed.  probably due to the leading 0 on the day. Frietjes (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I will investigate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)