You should look back at the resources and things I said earlier, they would answer your frains.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Languages_of_Finnish_municipalities_%282009%29.svg

You are joking right here? You are just showing a map (so no actual datas and figures) without any chart legend, Turku has only 5,2% of Swedish speakers and 88% of Finnish speakers (Finnish has nothing to do with Germanic languages, just in case you did not know it yet). So tell me how it is answering my "frains"?

I still have yet to see 1.5 million?

I already told you 1,5 million is the highest estimation ever made about Alsatian, but it is not only comprising people living in Alsace, but also outside, as you may know it, ironically, there is still a big community of Alsatian speakers... in America. It is actually the only Alemanic dialect still vivid in this continent thanks to... the Amish. They still use their ancestral language since they live secluded, it is known in America as "Pennsylvanian Dutch", but it is actually and basically the Alsatian dialect mainly, since the Amish came from Alsace. Quite ironical since an "endangered language" in Europe is the most thriving Germanic dialect in the US. Anyway to go back to the topic, these 1,5 million it is not very relevant about the Alsace region we can both agree on it.
I can provide some more relevant source showing Alsatian could be considered still as a dominant language (more than 50%), in a study made by Université de Laval (in Québec), they gathered datas of regional languages of France in 2014 thanks to Comité consultatif pour la promotion des langues régionales et de la pluralité interne, and about Alsatian they found 53% of the whole Alsatian population spoke Alsatian. Not only among elders since also 53% of young students follow courses of Alsatian in "classe de Langue Régionale", in comparison it is way more than Breton in Brittany with only 9% of children following LR classes...

Source: http://www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/europe/france-1demo.htm

Yes, but that doesn't matter.

It does matter as Alsatian is one of the least endangered regional languages in France, it is very vivid, you have yet to prove that Swedish in Finland, particularly in Turku is as vivid as Alsatian could be.

You are joking right here? You are just showing a map (so no actual datas and figures) without any chart legend, Turku has only 5,2% of Swedish speakers and 88% of Finnish speakers (Finnish has nothing to do with Germanic languages, just in case you did not know it yet). So tell me how it is answering my "frains"?

A map is a visual show of data, and again, if you had looked back at what I already said, I would have given the key. Middle blue and dark blue shades are Swedish majority (not light blue, though). You can check any of these yourself, for example, Jakobstad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakobstad), and they will be Swedish majority. Turku may be a bad name for the land, but maybe you should suggest better, in that case.

A map is really not relevant here particularly if there is no data nor legends supporting it.
Frankly, you can say anything with it like: "look there is a majority of dark color in this territory so the language is dominant here!". But it is all wrong, Turku region (or Abo) has only IN TOTAL 5,2% of Swedish speakers, and as Imperator said he would add only territories where Germanic languages are dominant, it is far from being dominant if you huh just consider the total amount of speakers which represents 5,2% nothing else!

Now let me explain how your map is irrelevant, check this map:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Euskara_percent.png

This map shows where Euskara is dominant nowadays, you would be surprised to see a huge territorial part (almost 80%) of Iparralde (3 provinces in the French side) having 80-100% of Euskara speakers, mainly in Soule, Low Navarre and Inner Labourd (all of which are rural places). Does it make Euskara a dominant language just because most of Iparralde territories are populated by more than 80% of Basque speakers? The answer is No, surprisingly, there is only 20% of Euskara speakers IN TOTAL in Iparralde, because the great majority of non speakers live in the Basque coast where also most of the population live too: as far as I recall, there is something like 300,000 inhabitants in Iparralde, but 250,000 live in a tiny line of 20km near the coast, whereas the rest live (50,000) live in the remaining 90% of the territory.


I am also sure a very similar map could be made about Alsace (sadly I found none because I suppose the French ban of making statistics according to ethnicity/religion/languages prevents any attempt to make a relevant map like the one for Finland, or the other one for Basque regions that was actually made by Spanish institutions not French ones). Alsace has certainly a majority of its territory populated by a majority of Alsatian speakers (since most of Alsace is rural), with only "lighter colored" zones in cities, and bigger ones such as Strasbourg, where this language is certainly very endangered, because French from other regions and people from everywhere (since Strasbourg is a very important city, one of the 3 capitals of the EU)settled there and never learnt the local language sadly.

Edited 5/12/2016 11:54:51

The only map I found about Alsatian dialects is this one:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Dialectes_Alsace.PNG

It illustrates zones where Germanic dialects were spoken in the 19th century, nothing contemporary though...

I think that chosing to represent different regions of countries is a mistake. The idea was so simple and beautiful in the beginning - now it can become a nightmare to find all the minorities in every country and places where they live. Belgium and Switzerland are not the hardest countries to split, but the more one thinks about it, the more countries will get split. There are still some slavic language minorities (almost dead) in eastern germany - should some land "traditionally" associated with slavic inhabitants be cut out of Germany? There are Sami languages in northern Sweden and Norway - should parts of these countries be excluded from this map? etc. etc. etc. I would vote to return to the initial idea of the map - to return to clear borders of countries, initially chosen by Imperator.

P.S. There could be a map of europe with overlapping bonuses representing languages and language groups. But this is entirely different and perhaps bigger project.

Edited 5/12/2016 18:50:18

A map is really not relevant here particularly if there is no data nor legends supporting it.

This map is data - it shows that the marked bits of the map are different from the others, at very least. As for legends, I gave you this a while ago and again.

But it is all wrong, Turku region (or Abo) has only IN TOTAL 5,2% of Swedish speakers, and as Imperator said he would add only territories where Germanic languages are dominant, it is far from being dominant if you huh just consider the total amount of speakers which represents 5,2% nothing else!

And so I did say Turku would not be a good name, and perhaps Jakobstad (56% Swedish) would be a better name. However, this is just a small naming mistake that you can actually fix yourself if it bothers you - and the land that is in the lands are mostly Swedish.

Now let me explain how your map is irrelevant, check this map:

You have not really explained anything - how does this map relate? If anything, you would be confirming my point, and asking for all Finland to be included since the shores are more populated, but this is not happening.

I think that chosing to represent different regions of countries is a mistake.

Majorities are not very hard to find. I disagree.

This map is data - it shows that the marked bits of the map are different from the others, at very least. As for legends, I gave you this a while ago and again.

"this map is data", but irrelevant datas, since we do not know exactly how many speakers are present in this region and the total number of speakers of Swedish compared to the rest.

And so I did say Turku would not be a good name, and perhaps Jakobstad (56% Swedish) would be a better name. However, this is just a small naming mistake that you can actually fix yourself if it bothers you - and the land that is in the lands are mostly Swedish.

Jakobstad is only one town, this map here shows an entire region, where the number of Swedish speakers compared to the rest is infinitesimal. You keep stuck in your views, even if it has been proven many time you were wrong, what a stubborn person.

You have not really explained anything - how does this map relate? If anything, you would be confirming my point, and asking for all Finland to be included since the shores are more populated, but this is not happening.

Well nor do you, that was the point, this map does not explain anything like yours. Only numbers count here. And the percentage of Swedish speakers in Abo is 5,2%.

Majorities are not very hard to find. I disagree.

Well the thing is that even territories without majorities have been added (see the Finnish ones), there is a total lack of consistency and uniformity. You have to choose to represent regions where Germanic languages are spoken in majority or not, not both. And it is even more irrelevant since it is omitting places like Alsace where a huge number speak a Germanic language, whereas Finnish regions where there is only 5% of Swedish speakers are added.
Again I am here to help not to denigrate your work Imperator.

Again I am here to help not to denigrate your work Imperator.

I do appreciate your help and opinion, and I am reading all this discussion :)

"this map is data", but irrelevant datas, since we do not know exactly how many speakers are present in this region and the total number of speakers of Swedish compared to the rest.

I told you twice already, the middle and dark blue shades are where Swedish speakers have a majority (not light blue, though), this is from the Finnish government statistic website.

Jakobstad is only one town, this map here shows an entire region, where the number of Swedish speakers compared to the rest is infinitesimal. You keep stuck in your views, even if it has been proven many time you were wrong, what a stubborn person.

You've some narrow-mindedness to call me "stuck in my views" - I argue my point, and sometimes I am convinced to the other side, but I've never seen you ever be convinced, so seems to me like you are "stuck" if anyone.

*Most lands on this map are named after one borough.
*As it seems, it has not proven that I am wrong, or maybe I have failed to see it (show me if I have).
*You're not even bringing up any actual figures ("infinitesmal") except Turku has 5.2% Swedish, which is why I said that the land should not be named Turku, but something like Jakobstad, while I have shown you.

Now I do understand now why you brought up this earlier beach exemple, but it's a very small change to do, landwise, but very tedious and hard, and you can say this of very many lands on this map.

Well the thing is that even territories without majorities have been added (see the Finnish ones), there is a total lack of consistency and uniformity.

Passing off a claim as axiom, and very much exaggeration...do you see one land that you disagree with its inclusion besides Finland?

And it is even more irrelevant since it is omitting places like Alsace where a huge number speak a Germanic language

First, irrelevant does not mean the same word as wrong, something wrong can be very relevant. You've yet to show anything for this. You did show some teaching slide with unknown source talking about total speakers of Alsatian in all France, which is obviously lower than mother speakers in Alsace, while I (right me if you think different) have a pretty safe. Another: http://www.insee.fr/fr/insee_regions/alsace/themes/cpar12_1.pdf

« L’alsacien est parlé en Alsace par 39 % des adultes, soit 500 000 personnes » (p. 1) (and evidently, the mother speakers will be lower than total speakers, which is already minority)

Again please add a separate Liechtenstein. rather than adding it to the Austrian bonus of Lech. Make a Tyrol or Innsbruck bonus then Liechtenstein.

1) ^

2) Also in this special case there might be the possibility to (re)incorporate the Alsace (and
cut-off territories) as bonus-free (0) areas

3) Saarbrucken -> Saarbrücken

English Versions->Endonyms:
(if important)
Flanders -> Vlaanderen
Luxembourg -> Lëtzebuerg
Hanover -> Hannover
Vienna -> Wien

I told you twice already, the middle and dark blue shades are where Swedish speakers have a majority (not light blue, though), this is from the Finnish government statistic website.

And I Will tell you that again: Swedish is a minority language in that place spoken by an infinitesimal proportion of people there, you can tell me there are many places with dark colors, it wont change the fact about it, and you will keep being irrelevant as long as you refuse to accept the obvious.

*Most lands on this map are named after one borough.
*As it seems, it has not proven that I am wrong, or maybe I have failed to see it (show me if I have).
*You're not even bringing up any actual figures ("infinitesmal") except Turku has 5.2% Swedish, which is why I said that the land should not be named Turku, but something like Jakobstad, while I have shown you.

Now I do understand now why you brought up this earlier beach exemple, but it's a very small change to do, landwise, but very tedious and hard, and you can say this of very many lands on this map.

As for now you have never proven at all Swedish was spoken by a majority of people in the Finnish regions that were added, you just provided an irrelevant source, a map without even legends on it and the example of only one city where Swedish is dominant, so unless you prove me I am wrong, you can say what you want, I start to know you and how you behave, you will always refuse that what you say is wrong, as you cannot curb at all your arrogance.

Passing off a claim as axiom, and very much exaggeration...do you see one land that you disagree with its inclusion besides Finland?

Aren't you doing the same, even worse, you pass claims with wrong sources, whereas I at least provided actual data's showing that Swedish was spoken by an infinitesimal group of people. Again prove I am wrong and bring datas about the entire region showed in Imperator's map and I will start to consider your statements.

First, irrelevant does not mean the same word as wrong, something wrong can be very relevant. You've yet to show anything for this. You did show some teaching slide with unknown source talking about total speakers of Alsatian in all France, which is obviously lower than mother speakers in Alsace, while I (right me if you think different) have a pretty safe. Another: http://www.insee.fr/fr/insee_regions/alsace/themes/cpar12_1.pdf

« L’alsacien est parlé en Alsace par 39 % des adultes, soit 500 000 personnes » (p. 1) (and evidently, the mother speakers will be lower than total speakers, which is already minority)

Irrelevant usually leads to wrong claims and answers.
Now, I already explained you that making stats about languages in France is hard, that's why you have different estimations about Alsatian.
Did you even opened the link I provided? I guess not, a different survey was led by a French organism and their results were published by a Canadian university, and they found 53% of people spoke Alsatian in Alsace! (hence a majority), not only elder people but younger generations! 53% of children were studying Alsatian in some degree in Langue Régionale classes. Well you aren't from France so perhaps you believe regional languages are all moribund, but for younger generations (after the 90s) such as me, we had the opportunity to have some teaching in regional languages! And it is even a majority of people nowadays in Alsace, Corsica or Iparralde!

But let's agree to disagree, even if I consider your own estimation, which is the lowest one, it still proves there is more people proportionally speaking a Germanic tongue in Alsace than the current regions of Finland where Swedish is spoken by a infinitesimal group of people. This is why adding these Finland regions were wrong if you do not add Alsace at all, you have to choose between not adding them both or adding them both, but not just one between the two which is actually where there is a even fewer percentage of people speaking a Germanic tongue!

Edited 5/13/2016 06:44:16

This map is well made, exept for the Belgium part.

This map is the most accurate that shows the Germanic Languages borders:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Indo-European_languages_in_Europe.png

Hey, Be sure to check out the latest version:

https://www.warlight.net/Play?PreviewMap=56280

I'll update the OP with this link.

This map is the most accurate that shows the Germanic Languages borders:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Indo-European_languages_in_Europe.png

More or less, but it overestimates how much Celtic tongues are spoken, even according to maximal censal data.

à Koala:

If you really are feeling into it, you can check for yourself to see if I am right or wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_municipalities_of_Finland_in_which_Finnish_is_not_the_sole_official_language

As for Alsace, you still have not said anything about mother speakers, which is what is being measured, and even total speakers barely makes it over half.

Curb your zeal.

change rotterdam to utrecht, rotterdam is in the region you called amsterdam, utrecht is the biggest city in the region you called rotterdam

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Indo-European_languages_in_Europe.png

^ You have to explain me how Alsatian is again omitted here whereas way more moribund language like Breton are shown in this map? This map is quite inaccurate.

This map is better: http://aleph2at.free.fr/contenu/media/germanique-carte.jpg


à Monsieur Juq, you have still not given me any datas about how many speakers of Swedish are present in the regions added by Imperator, you constantly show new maps with no demographics at all (the latest one shows only places where there is a policy of bilingualism, not actual datas again).

As for Alsace, as I told you many times, it is hard to find relevant statistics, since survey made in France about ethnicities and languages are not encouraged. You wont find any map about Alsace showing current places where Alsatian is more spoken.
As for native speakers, most of those speakers of Alsatian are native speakers, because the higher rate of Alsatian speakers is found in the older ones, (70% of Alsatian speakers for the older ones). So I would expect a rather high ratio of native speakers.

You also tend to forget as I said earlier, that even if Alsatian is a minority language, it is still around 40%, whereas Swedish is spoken by ONLY 5% of people from Åboland/Turku ("89.4% of Turku's population speak Finnish as their native language, while 5.2% speak Swedish.", source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turku#Demographics), and you have to take in count Alsatian is not a minority for actual Alsatians, Strasbourg is an international city and capital of Europe, for this very reason Alsatian's ratio is pretty much lowered, but if there was a map showing where Alsatian is spoken, you would get a map showing excepted in big cities (Strasbourg, Mulhouse) a high majority of Alsatian speakers anywhere else.

If the map is published with no change (I am going to rate it since I participated in this discussion), I cannot say it would represent the best way where "Germanic languages" are spoken, since places in Finland are added where a infinitesimal percentage of people speak a Germanic language, and some others like Alsace where a great part of the population still speak Alsatian. My vote will take in count this factor of course.

"curb your zeal" > Pretentious, Hypocrite (you see I can also make Juqish remarks).

If the map is published with no change (I am going to rate it since I participated in this discussion), I cannot say it would represent the best way where "Germanic languages" are spoken, since places in Finland are added where a infinitesimal percentage of people speak a Germanic language, and some others like Alsace where a great part of the population still speak Alsatian. My vote will take in count this factor of course.

There are people (Juq is one I know, and now you) who rate maps on petty things like this, but to be honest the vast majority of people just rate maps on how well they play; So please don't try to threaten me with a bad rating if I don't make changes you want me to.

change rotterdam to utrecht, rotterdam is in the region you called amsterdam, utrecht is the biggest city in the region you called rotterdam

On it, thanks :)

Alright, so I've finally found out what all the confusion is about.

If you look very closely (as I do not do when picking names off of google maps, which is why utrecht was named "Rotterdam"), Turku is actually not in the part of finland that I've included on my map:

http://www.awesomescreenshot.com/image/1246983/a973ab62e805cb414beb64f0a161e358

The only part I've included are some islands that are next to turku, but not turku itself.

The southern part of finland has been renamed to "Jakobstad" as per juqs suggestion.

Edited 5/13/2016 21:44:25