Talk:Satakunta

Requested move
Satakunta (region) → Satakunta — There is a disabiguation page for the historical province Satakunta (disambiguation), so there is no reason marking them both (historical province) or (region) Of course the current province is a lot more important than its history.. Pudeo (Talk) 14:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No-one seems to have a strong opinion about this, so I've been bold, and taken a third option, that of merging the two articles into one, which can replace the disambiguation page. --Stemonitis 09:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You've done well. Especially as most Finns consider the region to be the same as the historical province, now only with new status and more well-defined borders. --MPorciusCato 08:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Finland-Swedish minority?
In the introductory chapter, there is a separate sentence "There is a small minority of Finland-Swedes in Satakunta." Indeed, this is a very small minority: there are about 350 Swedish-speaking persons in Pori, the capital of the region. In other municipalities, the net number of Swedish-speakers is much lower than this (785 in 1999 ). The Folktinget does not mention any Swedish inhabitation in Satakunta in its publication Finlandssvenskarna 2005 — en statistisk rapport. I would go as far as to say that such a small minority (0.3% out of total population) does not merit mention, especially as all Swedish-speakers in Satakunta are very fluent in Finnish. --MPorciusCato (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Historical province and nowadays region
User:Pko has taken a practice of re-creating the page Satakunta (historical province), contrary to the earlier consensus which resulted in merging the that article with this one. Considering that this article already discusses the whole historical province, and the nowadays region, I'd like him to give reasons for re-creating that article. Edit-warring is not the way to make a better Wikipedia. --MPorciusCato (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)