File talk:Distribution-sv.png

from sv:Fildiskussion:Distribution-sv.png:

Vad innebär de streckade områdena? Ztaffanb 4 juni 2007 kl. 19.48 (CEST)

Det er områder hvor det også er en utbredning av andre språk. I Sverige er det samiske språk, mens det i Finland er finsk. Jon Harald Søby 13 oktober 2007 kl. 09.46 (CEST)

Tornedalen borde vara streckat. /Yvwv [y'vov] 3 mars 2008 kl. 01.38 (CET)

This map doesn't make sense to me. What is the meaning of the hatching? The Lappland part of Norrbotten county hasn't been Swedish-speaking for very long, but the same is true for the Lappland part of Västerbotten county. Tornedalen has been Swedish-speaking for less than a century, but is not hatched. The hatched areas in Finland are Swedish-speaking since a very long time. How is the map to be interpreted, and what is it's source?--Skogsfrun (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm also quite skeptical to Lappland being marked specially. If we're talking about multilingual areas, we could just as well start adding the same pattern to all the Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö since these have high concentrations of immigrants. It makes sense for parts of Finland, but all of Sweden should be same color, really.

There's also a slight problem with marking Denmark as an area of mutual intelligibility. There's a very high degree of mutual intelligibility, but you can find plenty of Swedish speakers, native speakers and second-language speakers alike, who consider spoken Danish almost incomprehensible. Peter ^Isotalo 13:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Languages rarely have fixed borders, so let's make this map as useful and accurate as possible for people interested in this language. (Filadifei 18:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

I don't believe a legend in the image itself is really necessary. In these cases it's much easier to write the legend in the file description, and any tweaks or corrections are much easier to introduce. And then we don't need separate versions for every language version of Wikipedia.

But if we're going to keep working on this map, we need to remove the hatched "multilingual" area in northwestern Sweden.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The map showing the language areas in Sweden contains serious errors. Bilingual Meänkieli/Finnish-Swedish areas in the Torne Valley along the border of Finland are indicated as monolingual Swedish-speaking. These areas are even legally defined in the official Meänkieli-speaking area. The map needs to be redrawn. --88.193.41.159 06:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I had enough of this debate and simply edited out the reason for constant complaints and revisions myself. Defining northern Sweden as particular bilingual is not neutral and has more to do with official language status and politics than anything else. The major urban areas with large immigrant populations have just as many, if not more, second-language speakers of Swedish than the Torne Valley or whatever. The map should stay simple unless serious, reliable sources are introduced to support the illustration of particular second language-speaking areas. Peter ^Isotalo 10:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Peter. The map should be kept simple and drawn from the point of view of this article only, the swedish language and its usage. Hatching should be removed completely. And if there are no objections, I will also reintroduce colouring in Finland and Norway/Denmark that got lost in the last edit. Please remember to use the latest version when updating. (Filadifei 14:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC))

The removal of the coloring of Denmark and Norway was entirely intentional. It's true that the Scandinavian languages are very mutually intelligible, but the map is supposed to be about the general distribution of Swedish spoken by native speakers. All the additions have really been about non-native speakers, or closely related languages. That's something else, though. I'm sure it's very useful to illustrate one way or another, but it could just as easily be done in alternative versions of this map.

In short, just please stop trying to pile all sorts of secondary info into the same basic illustration.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's a good idea. Another variation of the map. But please try to discuss before reverting work. Actually, the original version of the coloured drawing was not only about native speakers. Yes, multiple languages in this map seems too much. But areas where you can actually use plain Swedish seems accurate and on subject. (Filadifei 15:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC))

I actually don't believe it to be either accurate nor on subject. The mainland Scandinavian languages are close enough to be considered mere dialects, but they are also very good examples of languages that have been defined politically. And that's something to be taken seriously, just like it's taken seriously in more clear-cut cases of "dialect languages" like the former Yugoslav languages or Meänkieli. As dialects that have been politically defined as languages, they shouldn't be intermingled in illustrations. And if you start speculating about "areas where you can use plain Swedish" you're taking a nosedive into some pretty advanced guessworks. Icelanders are pretty good at Danish, which means they understand Swedish reasonably well. Se do we include Iceland? A very large number of Finns still speak Swedish to one extent or another, some fluently, others barely. Do you illustrate that by coloring all of Finland, or do you settle for what we have now? And what about places like London? 50,000+ Swedes live there according to statistics I've seen recently. Just about all of them Swedish citizens if I'm not mistaken. Do we represent that with a little orange blob on the Thames? There are also large communities of recently-immigrated Swedes in southern Spain and in major cities around the world.

A file used on 30 different projects should be kept simple. The areas on the map right now are where we can positively, without speculation and selective argumentation say that Swedish (not its mutually intelligible sister languages) is spoken either as the majority language, or by a significant minority.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed a different map of the Swedish language on the Spanish Wikipedia page. It is taken from a very good set of language-maps on the European Union. It focuses on knowledge rather than politics or national borders. It seems more useful than this drawing. As it is now, with most of Finland having the same colour as e.g Poland, seems incorrect. The drawings should actually be merged. The question on areas of mutual intelligibility can be discussed later, in a larger forum.

The Icelandic language can not be added to the drawing, as it is not mentioned in the article. It is even indirectly stated in the article on the Icelandic language that it is not mutualy intelligible with Norwegian (or the other Scandinavian languages).

So I suggest: 1.Update this mas on Finland, 2.Talk to user Fobos and update Sweden to dark blue on that map, 3. Replace the orange/white map with the blue/gray one in the article on the Swedish language. (Filadifei 20:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC))

I suggest you first try to read up on some reliable sources before referring to images like File:Idioma sueco.PNG as a good example of an illustration. Anyone who shades western and northern Sweden the same as Finland and random patches of Estonia hasn't done their homework.

I respect your ideas about how languages should be defined. I don't like political definition of languages either. But it's really just an opinion, and it doesn't reflect the common definition of the individual Scandinavian languages. If you seriously want to make an illustration of mutual intelligibility among the mainland Scandinavian languages, you have to make a serious attempt to read up on the topic first and base your suggestions on reliable sources. And, again, please don't push to cram every available nuance into the same basic geographic distribution map.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really folllow you here. They're obviously not just opinions. Denmark/Norway as areas of mutual intelligibility and Finland as minority-area are clearly stated in the article. But the map does not reflect this. That was the reason for the contribution. It's just that you want the majority-areas only. (Filadifei 20:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

Find reliable sources to back your views up. It's as simple as that. In this case it means that you need to prove that what you're arguing for reflects the majority opinion among scholars in the field. And you also need to balance that against the most widely spread cultural and political definitions of Swedish.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Estonia

No part of Estonia should be added to this map. There is a widespread perception that it is still widely spoken there and that is even enjoys official status, even though there is no reliable evidence for any such claims. If you wish to add any regions to the map, there should be credible support by serious references. For details on this issue, I recommend reading the discussion at en:Talk:Swedish language#Final word on Noarootsi official Swedish.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hatched areas

The map now shows all Swedish-speaking and officially bilingual areas in Finland (except Åland) as hatched. Shouldn't areas where Swedish is the majority language and primary official language be shown in solid orange also in Finland? –LPfi (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)