Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lenguas germánicas.PNG

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Lenguas germánicas.PNG

This file is inaccurate. Norwegian is the official language and also the majority language in the whole mainland, except for Kautokeino municipality. Even there the majority of the population speaks Norwegian, even if 90% is said to have Northern Sami as native language. In Sweden the official and majority language is Swedish, but note that the Nordic languages are very closely related. In all I think there are to many errors here and the map should be deleted unless it can be promptly fixed. A similar map is removed from the article about Norwegian language at nowiki. [1] Jeblad (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This map does not show any linguistic minorities or majorities, and does not show where the languages ​​are official. What it shows is a whole group of Germanic languages ​​spoken. In northern Scandinavia native languages ​​are the Sami languages​​, not Scandinavian. I'm not saying that Norwegian and Swedish aren't spoken, even I dont say that they are minority languages. What is shown in the north are the regions in which it is shared with other non-Germanic languages​​. Similarly in Wales, Ireland and Scotland are blank areas to identify areas of Celtic domain, although this domain does not have a majority. If we are to be as exquisite we should leave in color gray the interior of the island of Iceland because nobody lives there.-- Fobos | ¿algo que decirme? 16:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. (se also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Idioma noruego.png. It is not possible to understand what this file is supposed to illustrate the distribution of. All of Norway speaks Norwegian. All of Sweden speaks Swedish. Sweden does not have Norwegian speaking areas or a Norwegian speaking minority as shown in this file. In both Sweden and Norway we do have our brethren from the other side of the border mostly working in the big cities. This said, Swedish and Norwegian are very closely related and we can understand each other (mostly though on occation we misunderstand each other). A Swede can live in Norway and speak Swedish in Norway and he/she will be understood (and vice versa). Both languages have a plethora of dialects. The areas in Sweden this file shows as partly Norwegian speaking areas are the areas Båhuslen, Jämtland and Härjedalen which was lost to Norway and became Swedish (1177/78-1645 and approx.1000-1658) with the consequenses this had for both the spoken and written language in the areas. Although nobody spoke modern Norwegian or Swedish at the time. They do not have a Norwegian speaking minority, the northernmost area does have a Swedish dialect that is closer to Norwegian than other Swedish dialects though.

In a few areas in Norway such as Kautokeino a considerable part of the population is bilingual and has a choice as to which language they consider their main language and prefer to learn in school (and if they chose Sami they also learn Norwegian). Some municipalities also have Sami as an option to chose in communication with Norwegian authorities. More than 50 years ago quite a few in these areas were not able to speak Norwegian and only spoke Sami or Finnish. This is no longer the situation. This file does not show which areas this was. The Norwegian government netsite: Samelovens språkregler og forvaltningsområdet for samisk språk has a map of the municipalities that has elected to use both Norwegian and Sami as official languages to communicate with their inhabitants (see section Forvaltningsområdet for samisk språk (dark grey areas has Sami and Norwegian both and equally as official languages)). Especially in these areas there is a large portion of the population who are bilingual. This file does not correspond to the Norwegian goverments map of municipalities having chosen Sami as official language along with Norwegian due to having a large part of the population being bilingual and preferring to use Sami.

This file clearly does not correspond with actual language usage in either Norway or Sweden. This file is inaccurate beyong redemption. My apologies for beeing a quite upset on behalf of my country and my country's languages and not politely understating my opinion of this file. I do understand that the file is the result good will and hard work, but unfortunately not a success and the file should not be used in any article on Wikipedia or elsewere. This is the case for some other files on Commons which is or will also be requested deleted. -- ツ^ツ Dyveldi  ☯  17:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, if someone think there is something wrong in the map, I invite him to modificate it. If you are norwish or swedish and you know better the reality of the languages I tell you plainly, modify it according to your criteria. I'm sure you will do well. The map is a .PNG easily modificabe by several computer programs. Delete it is the easy way, but instead of destroying the work of other users who put their time in it, what we should do is to get it better fits the reality. This is how wikimedia works. -- Fobos | ¿algo que decirme? 13:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I relied it on existing maps, I did not invent it. And the support of norwegian users, as in the creation of the third map, by my own too.-- Fobos | ¿algo que decirme? 13:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

Yes I do understand that this probably originiated with one map being copied and that this is not fun for several creators. I do apologise for being upset and so not understating the problem as politely as possible. This conserns several files and the discussion seems to have consentrated here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Idioma noruego.png. The accurate file is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nordiska_språk.PNG. Of the files that you mention two is also inaccurate and in the File:Europe germanic-languages 2.PNG (the map in the middle above) I do not understand what the terms East Scandinavian and West Scandinavian refer to. Generally Danish is closer to Norwegian than Swedish (in writing) and that Norwegian New Norwegian (written language) is pretty close to Swedish, but that det biggest difference between the languages is between Swedish and Danish. This is not what the map says. It seems that a map that is inaccurate or wrong is not a deletion reason (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Idioma noruego.png) which means that another way of fixing this must be found. One intermediary solution can be to remove the maps from their present categories and to place them in a category for maps in need of repair. -- ツ^ツ Dyveldi  ☯  13:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• delete, per extreme lack of accurancy. No reliable source can have been used making this map. First: Norwegian is spoken all over Norway. Second: the border distinction between nynorsk and bokmål is wrong in any way, whatever you search for nynorsk municipalities nor "spoken nynorsk" (which is a highly Original Research-appraoch). Third: It is likely hard to understand which sources are used to create the borders between swedish dialects, if that is the intention. Fourth: The absence of Elfdalian underlines the lack of factual knowledge in these matters. --Morten Haugen (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: this map is very good. It pictures what it wants to picture. It is NOT about official language here, state laws or whatever is discussed above. It is an approximation of the big westgermanic supradialects. And also: never delete anything good (but maybe not perfect) unless you can provide something better. Bring a better map, than we can discuss. Until than, I strongly oppose any deletion of this very well done work. --El bes (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This map cetainly does not picture the things is says it should picture. Why is there no "big westgermanic supradialects" in northern Troms, Finnmark or Norrbotten? This is in no way what languages in Norway or Sweden look like to us who live her. If someone knows better than us, they should be able to provide realiable sources!?
    There is no need to turn the table against us who point out the errors. Here is an allegory: If I tell that your car has a flat tyre, you should be grateful, and either change the tyre or stop using the car. There is no use in ordering us to bring a new tyre; your tyre is flat no matter whether we can provide better tyres or not. Bw --Morten Haugen (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• delete (and redo): ...Moreover, the prevalence of Low German seems highly exaggerated. As it is, the map could be justified as correctly indicating the area within the bounds of which small traces of Low German might still be encountered today, i.e. here and there, embedded in a majority of High German speakers. But Northern Germany is not an area "occupied" by Low German, as the explanation of the map suggests. The general strategy of the map seems to be that a majority language is not shown in an area as soon as there is also some kind of other minority language there. In so far, the map might even be saved by giving the right kind of explanations, but the whole strategy doesn't make sense IMHO, and any explanations are going to look confusing. -- As far as German is concerned, it is also not clear how Standard German relates to the two varieties shown, i.e. whether Upper German is meant here as a dialect of Standard German or as the area where today's Standard German has originated historically. It's a pity because it is a beautiful map. If somebody will redraw it, I would suggest, quite in general, to indicate areas in terms of the standard language applicable there, as an outline, plus hatched areas that can be explained as containing certain minority varieties in addition (e.g. Low German within the area of Standard German; maybe the same can be made to work with Scandinavian and with English / Scots / etc. ?).--Alazon (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Fobos has been most kind and understanding in this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Idioma noruego.png and shown both will and understanding of the problem so the problem was fixed. What if it is possible to start with doing the same changes in this file? To make a distinction between Norwegian Bokmaal and Nynorsk is not necessary. For this distinction we have these files File:Norwegianmalforms.png 2007 situation File:Målformer i Norge mk.svg 2011 situation. Both probably reflect which municipalities has officially decided on one or the other (or no preference) of our two written languages. Dialects in Norway is a different kettle of fish. Trying to make this distinction would ony make the final product a mess.

Then we have a Swedish problem and I rather think Sweden should be one language as well.

For the other Germanic languages we need a proper linguist. I am a bit uncertain if half of Belgium will agree to speaking Dutch. Likewise I am uncertain if the Irish dialect is not just as different from Englands spoken language as Scottish is. There are some dialects whithin England as well. Maybe English with it's dialects should be one colour?

Morten Haugen (above) does know a lot about languages and I pinged another knowledgable Norwegian in the other discusion (User:Jon Harald Søby so I call on him here as well). With some expertise on board Fobos really has shown how to fix the problems. -- ツ^ツ Dyveldi  ☯  18:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The way I see it, this map depicts the traditional distribution of the Germanic languages. That is to say: around 100 to 50 years ago when much of the ground research on these languages was done and when the basic divisions were established. When describing the Germanic languages, that's usually what linguists will aim for. This explains the non-Germanic areas in Scandinavia, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, as well as the Germanic areas in France, and Low German, where these varieties are not really dominant anymore. Ideally we would have two maps, one showing the situation 50 years ago, and one showing the current situation. But to delete this one altogether seems a bit extreme. --Terfili (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This is getting more and more curious. Now, Terfili is telling us that there weren't living enough norwegian speaking people in the cities Tromsø, Hammerfest, Vadsø nor Vardø between 1914 and 1964 to consist a linguistic majority. I hope he has good sources, for this is very new to me.

In Sweden, the mining city en:Kiruna was established around 1900. There was a huge immigration of miners, and it is a fair guess that most of them were of swedish tongue? Not sami speaking? Right? Furthermore, I wonder what criteria that were used to establish the border between swedish-speaking areas and non-swedish-speaking areas? It is not the border of Norrbotten County, so what could it possibly be? A river? A minor watershed?

Then, there is also the question about the alleged norwegian speaking people in Sweden, as adressed in File talk:Europe germanic-languages 2.PNG, and about the sourceless division between nynorsk and bokmål

The best solution to this case, is for Fobos to admit that he has used poor sources or no sources, and to realize that he has to start over again. Misguiding maps like this one is not helping the reputation of Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Bw --Morten Haugen (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

For any linguistic map, there is always some critizism coming from some region, which is not even the focus of the map. This is not a scandinavian map, actually the scandinavian germanic languages don't even belong to the western germanic group, but to the northern germanic group. They are just pictured as an extra on this map. The focus is on the western germanic languages, and concerning those, the map is very useful. --El bes (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, El bes. That was an expected and predictable second line of defence: After "There isn't anything wrong with this map" have proved impossible comes "You're not a significant part of this map, therefore your opinion doesn't matter."

If this is supposed to be a map only about West Germanic languages, then the map should be cropped and renamed to reflect this. Until then, please allow us to point out errors and request remaking of the map (or realiable sources to prove the content of the map, if such exists)

Furthermore, this is not only a question abour swedish and norwegian. As user:Alazon points of, there are also good reason to raise questions about the border between high and low german. If there are problems/questions about the representation of both german, swedish and norwegian; how can we then be confident about those remaining languages that we do not know anything about? Do we have any reliable sources to prove that they don't speak scottish english in western Scotland?

And at last, and most important: Alazon also questions the concept of the map: "The general strategy of the map seems to be that a majority language is not shown in an area as soon as there is also some kind of other minority language there". Is this principle approved by standard linguistic cartography, or is it some kind or original research from Fobos and the sources that he has used? This is what i all boils down to, isn't it? Bw --Morten Haugen (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Anybody can modify the map and upload a new and better version. Deletion on the other hand is not the very best option, in my opinion. And we are discussing here a deletion, aren't we? --El bes (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 10:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)