User talk:Industrius
Perhaps it is because it is very difficult to do, but the maps utter lack of transition markings renders it basically false for many locations around the world, that and your sometimes use of national borders to decide which color to paint it.
Here are some notable examples all of which are supported by information available in Wikipedia itself and not just my assumptions.
EXAMPLE #1 The biggest of course is the USA
It is, because of the massive inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the portrayal of the USA, and the use of a different standard for deciding what color to paint the USA while ignoring them everywhere else in the world, that your map is far more false than it is true, and in need of major revision.
Something I'd be happy to do by the way. So please don't see my comments as an attempt to tell someone else what they should do. I am only sending the message to you, because that is the direction below the articles that feature your map. :)
The USA is the 2nd largest Spanish speaking nation in the world, believe it or not WHEN you rank based on total # of people who can speak Spanish.
Only Mexico has more Spanish speakers.
Yet your map paints the USA as a Germanic language speaking nation which it most definitely is, but your color scheme designates it as red and as monolingual as Germany itself based on its national borders.
Now that is completely wrong.
As you know The USA is NOT a monolingual nation.
It's far from it.
For in addition to those two languages there are the Native American languages, but you DO note those.
What is very odd is the point made to highlight another part of the USA, the Cajun region of Louisiana, as NOT Germanic speaking.
That is false.
It is NOT supported by the facts.
Cajun speakers are a very small 4.52% according to Wikipedia(a small minority even in Cajun country) shrinking, and currently indistinct minority in the Bayou region of Louisiana for ALL speak English.
There are no more monolingual Cajun speakers there.
So to paint this little corner of the USA as an area where A Romance language while completely ignoring the large swaths of the nation where Spanish is widely used and often dominant increases the factual errors in your map.
If the same standards that were used to paint Cajun Country as a non-Germanic language area were used for the rest of the USA, then ALL the border states would likewise be portrayed as NON-Germanic speaking.
OH and in regard to our Urban areas multilingualism holds sway, but even there the other language most people speak is Spanish. To paint our major urban areas like Los Angeles, New York City as Germanic speaking is even more factually incorrect than painting the entire nation the same color as you chose for the nation of Germany itself.
Because of the either/or nature of your map it can't even be called partly true.
EXAMPLE 2 How it was decided that part of South Africa is a Germanic language zone is hard to ascertain,
By all measures African languages are overwhelmingly dominant, aside from a few urban areas where English and German come close to parity of sorts thanks to Africans themselves being bilingual.
At it's peak European descended people were at most 20% of the population of South Africa. Today it is significantly smaller, thanks to the much more rapid growth of the Black African people in the nation.
Interestingly a point is made to highlight the Urban areas of South Africa where European languages achieve a parity with African languages, UNLIKE the USA. Of course while the attempt is noted, it is still false, because they are multilingual cities, not monolingual Germanic language speaking cities.
EXAMPLE 3 CHINA So I take it in regards to Tibet you are getting your information directly from the Di Llama himself? (joke)
Your designations make no sense not even in the general context of your map.
Tibet has about 6 million people. China has 1.35 BILLION people.
What justification is there for donating the entire region of the ancient/medieval kingdom of Tibet as Tibetan speaking, but simultaneously completely ignoring Spanish in the USA or African in parts of South Africa.
Both the USA and South Africa have far more of the people who speak the language your map ignores than there are Tibetan speakers in the entire nation of China.
The same sort of error is made in regards to Mongolian.
Mongolia is populated almost exclusively by speakers of Mongolian, BUT the autonomous Provence of China called Inner Mongolia features more Chinese speakers than Mongolian these days, and has for a couple of decades.
To look at your world map, 1.26 BILLION Chinese speakers matter far less and are far less dominant than Germanic language speakers in the USA. These sorts of inferred facts are conveyed in the color scheme of the map.
EXAMPLE 4 There are also numerous small mistakes. Here are two.
To paint such a large portion of the Island of Tiawan as not Chinese speaking is completely false, especially when you go out of your way to paint virtually the entire New Zealand as Germanic language speaking. Yet in terms of % New Zealand has more than 2x the # of Moari speakers than Taiwan does Aboriginal Tiawanese speakers.
So clearly the map needs some streamlining, some absolute standards (no national borders or ALL national borders) as well as a more nuanced color scheme to be considered factual.
MrJohnnyMorales
Start a discussion with Industrius
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. Start a new discussion to connect and collaborate with Industrius. What you say here will be public for others to see.
