File talk:Hablantes nativos de español en Europa.PNG

Colors and Legend

Comparison of my work and your work

Hi @Fobos92:  !

Sorry, I don't speak Spanish. As we can see, you are not respecting the legend. You are reinforcing the Spanish language, and there is a lack of neutrality. I will put back my map otherwise I'll ask other people to see what you have done.

It' the fouth time I'm changing your linguistic maps because you don't respect the source" Here the three others:

• File:New-Map-Francophone World.PNG (Remove some 90% Francophone area in Ontario)
• File:Español en Canadá.png (totally wrong with up to 20% Spanish speaking people in some province in Canada)
• File:Idioma español en el mundo.PNG (Same as above)

--Zorion (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Zorion: . I dont know if you are or are not be able to understand spanish. But the messenge in the edit page was not for you in special, and there are a very good translation webs out there. Firts, the map of the spanish language in the wortld was confectionated after another map of spanish on Canada. The map of Canada you show me was another version very different. I used other source in the day I made the map. But now there is another source, so I make nothing for reedit it because the new font is more atested. Second, the maps of spanish of Spain indicates the number of spanish native speakers, not the total of speakers of Euskera. Yes, I know the map of Euskadi and Navarre, but in there is indicated the total of speakers of basque, including people that usually not speak that language but they nkow it. Is a lie indicated that basque is speaking by 80 per cent of people in all this regions as a native language. Like the irish in ireland, maybe most people can understan the irish, even are villeges where is majority, but the english is the most majority native language in the practical entire island (there are maps about it). The most comon language in all Euskadi is spanish. And third, in Alava the maps dint indicate a 100 perc cent of spanish speakers, the darkest blue color indicate <100, less than 100, its said, between 90 to 100. Please, stop this war of editions nowǃ-- Fobos | ¿algo que decirme? 03:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

And finally, I want to glad you what you did with the fancophone map. Thanks for your improvement in many areas. Sorry for non including the areas in Ontario, but I had not the source, I just indicated the french as a minor language in the entire province. But maybe we should do a better distribution of the dark blue in this province, now is very few credible just as a straight line going to the northwest.-- Fobos | ¿algo que decirme? 03:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Fobos92:  ! Ok. So why did you use the wrong map ? Why did you use the wrong colors of the legend by pushing over the limit if you knew it was not the good map? For me, only sources matters. You need this map : File:Basque as first language(corrected).JPG. So a new map needs to be done.

And to be neutral, you have to use the color of 90% for 0%-20%, 70% for 20%-40%, 50% for 40%-60%, 30% for 60%-80% and 10% for 80%-100%. --Zorion (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Zorion: . Sure. But there is a thing here. The speakers in Euskadi are dividen mainly in three groups: first the bilingüal speakers, they are native in euskera, but in spanish too, around 32%; second the pasive bilingüal, they can speak and understand euskera but spanish is their mother tongue around 17%, and third the exclusive spanish speakers, the majority with 50,8% here the source "V Encuesta Sociolingüística. 2011. Gobierno Vasco" If you realice, all this three groups have the spanish as a native language, some of then with another native language. My map dont indicate the basque speakers, just the spanish native speakers, and all this groups have it. The forth group, the native basque speakers that have or have not the spanish as a foreing language didn't appear in that census, this group are very minority. The social reality of basque is not comparable with another languages that coexist with spanish as catalonian or galician. I made a map about spanish, and I cant do difeten parts of the map with diferent criteria. If I make a map with spanish as first and second language, then the entire map were in darkes blue, less a couple of small villages in Galicia maybe, but for sure all Euskal Herria were i darkest because there is not any municipality in there were the spanish as first plus second language dont be superior to 90%. So I think the map is correct, because its just about spanish.-- Fobos | ¿algo que decirme? 13:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Fobos92: . Ok let' make it clear. As you said, 99% of the people of Euskadi and Navarra have Spanish as mother tongue. All Spain is Spanish speaking. No doubt about it. You can make a map as dark as posible. But now, if you don't want to take into account the last source I gave to you, we have problem: This is your personal interpretation with legend and color, from a map of Basque speaking knowledge that we have. Meanwhile the last source corresponds to your purpose. You have to find a map that correspond to your interpretation, other it doesn't fit. May be we should ask to other persons and be involved in this discussion --Zorion (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Zorion: . You didnt understand nothing. The source I found, is the source used in wikipedia, for the page of basque language. I dont say 99%, I said that the reality of basque language is more complex for its situation. I dont put this two regions in darker blue, there is many diferences, but its a lie that there is so many places where just 10 of echa 100 have spanish as mother tongue. Just see the maps of Catalonia and Galicia, you are trying put Euskadi even lighter, and the linguistic is not like that. And I isist, this is not a map about the basque language, its about spanish language. And I used sources, it was a hard work on this map, and serious one.-- Fobos | ¿algo que decirme? 16:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fobos92: I resume my messages, seems it wasn't clear enough. Firstly, I said that everybody speaks Spanish, so you could have this map totally black if you want. Nothing else. Secondly, you have decided to put other native languages into it. Thirdly, I explained to you with my Map 0 that you have misinterpreted the legend, you said that the Map 1 isn't good because it's the percentage of people proficient in basque language in Navarre and Euskadi, not the percentage of people with Basque as native language. OK ! Fourthly, I have presented you the right map that corresponds to your project: Map 2 and you refused to take into consideration Map 2.

Our probrem : We have now your personal interpretation with legend and color, from a Map 1 instead of Map 2 that fits to your project.

I reapeat again for the last time before asking other people : Only source matters (stop telling me the situaion of Basque, I know it very well)

So the question is : Yes or No, do you want to use Map 2 ? (If «Yes»... we continue the discussion and we forget Map 0 and Map 1 definitly, if «No», and I will respect your choice and I'll ask right away other advices from other. Make your choice. --Zorion (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Zorion: Oh my godǃǃǃǃ No, I dont gonna use the Map 2. How I can explain you? The map dont speak about the basque language. Speak about spanish. And, not, I didnt put another native language. What other language you see indicated? Listen, yes the basque is speaking by the people in your maps, but in the source I use is indicated that almost every native basque speakers are bilingual, thats mean they have two diferent native languages. Can you understand this? Yes or not? This is the reality of spanish in the basque sociaety, there are very few people that have not native use of spanish in Euskadi and Navarre, for sure there is people like that, and I indicated diferent colours in this regions. And I repit you, the darker, the same as in Madrid, indicates more tahn 90, not 100ǃǃ-- Fobos | ¿algo que decirme? 08:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

In Commons, there is really not a lot of reason to argue about most of this: we can have multiple maps, showing what different sources say. It is important that any given map hew close to its cited sources. This looks like a fusion of multiple sources, and would do well to say what comes from where.

For what it's worth, I would think it important that the description indicate precisely what the map represents. For example, one study might reflect who identifies as hispanohablante; a different study might track whether they have native-level proficiency. I certainly know a lot of Catalans who would never call themselves hispanohablantes, but whom any linguist would count as native-level proficient. Conversely, if they hit their thumb with a hammer, they'd be a lot more likely to shout something in Catalan than in Castilian. - Jmabel ! talk 22:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Alicante

Creo que el mapa está mal en lo que concierne a Alicante. Entiendo que el porcentaje de nativos español se basa en los que no son valenciano hablantes, hasta ahí bien, pero es que en Alicante un 23% de la población es extranjera y mayoritariamente europea, por tanto su idioma nativo es otro. Obviamente atañe a toda España pero este sería el caso más representativo. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.60.238.47 (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)