File talk:Writing systems worldwide.png

Discussions from the English language Wikipedia

[Forwarded from en:File talk:Writing systems worldwide.png by Athaenara (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)]

Base colouring on how scripts work

To avoid having too many colours on the map, I suggest the following:

1. Use a single colour theme for all writing systems of a structural type (how a script works) – ignoring genealogic relation, because the structure will be easier to determine.
   For example, shades of grey for abugidas, shades of orange for syllabaries.
2. Within the writing systems of a type, try to find one or more scripts that both cover a large area and are genealogically closely related (of course, this doesn't imply any genealogic relation between their languages).
   Example 1: If you find that abugidas of the Brahmic family in the narrowest sense clearly dominate abugida territory, you make one shade of grey for Brahmic family abugidas and another shade for all other abugidas.
   Example 2: In the same manner, you would have three hues of colour X (alphabets): one for Latin alphabets (Great Britain, Vietnam etc.), a second one for Cyrillic (Outer Mongolia, Macedonia etc.) and a third one shared by all other alphabets such as Korean, Greek, Georgian, Armenian, and perhaps Ol Chiki and Mongolian if they are dominant in some areas.

Wikipeditor 01:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the map was designed to have a color theme per structural type.

• Alphabets: blue - gray - black
• Abjads: green
• Abugidas: yellow - orange - brown
• Logographic and/or syllabary: red - pink

It appears to me that it is easy to read structural type from the color scheme, with the possible exception of black for Georgia-Armenia. If there are not more than 4 structural types, it's not necessary to compress each type into a single color such as "blue", but can spread a type over related colors for better contrast.

Yes, you could for example lump Ethiopic and Thaana together as "other abugida" and give them the same color. But for readers who are not familiar with those scripts in the first place, a unique color helps to locate where the script is used.

BTW, an unstated assumption in the map is that it shows only official or dominant languages of whole countries, and it works pretty well as such; subregions of large countries like India and China might make sense, but I wouldn't go much further than that. If we want to get into minority, obscure, or historical scripts, we should have a separate map or maps for that, probably at larger scale. --JWB 20:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Latin Alphabet area, or any area for that matter, should be gray. Gray is the default color for null areas, so, at first glance, it looks like there is no writing system at all in the Americas and Europe. I'm not sure what color it should be though. We already have a lot of shades of blue, and black wouldn't work very well either. -Tea and crumpets 20:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, is there any danger of people thinking there is no writing system at all in the Americas and Europe? What are they reading this Wikipedia in then? --JWB (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Areas with several systems vs. areas with a single mixed-script system

If somebody can do it, it would be nice to graphically reflect the difference between

• situations where there are several writing systems in an area, either
  • where there are several languages with a similar number of speakers in an area, each with a different writing system, or
  • where more than one writing system is used in the area of a single language (for example, Tatar and Serbian [and some Central Asian languages, perhaps?] are written in Cyrillic and Latin, but never mixed), vs.
• situations where there is one writing system which makes use of several scripts (for example, Japanese is written in Kana and Kanji which are usually mixed).

Perhaps this can be done by hatching colours in the first case(s) vs. using a middle hue in the second case? Wikipeditor 01:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The only mixed-script cases are Japan and (to a rapidly decreasing degree) South Korea, which are already uniquely identified with solid dark pink, and labeled as mixed in the caption. The dark pink needs more contrast with red, though.

I was tempted to label some Central Asian countries as mixed Cyrillic-Latin; in particular, the three that have officially switched to Latin (Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan) have older and unofficial Cyrillic use continuing. OTOH, their official policies are firmly towards Latin rather than coexistence of Latin and Cyrillic. I think Tatarstan's Latinization move was vetoed by Moscow, so Cyrillic is still official there. I am not sure there are any cases where Latin and Cyrillic are officially equal.

Where needed, even better and easier than hatching would be adding dots of another color to indicate wide but unofficial use of a second script not confined to a specific region of a country. Hatching would leave it unclear which was official. --JWB 20:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

agree about dotting and hatching, good point. In some areas dotting and hatching would need to be combined (this is speculative at the moment, sorry, cannot currently think of an example but will be back on this if I find a good example) - I do like the solution with new colours, though, if enough new colours are available that remain distinguishable from each other ;-) C.Koltzenburg (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

maybe this is a case in point, with three writing systems for the first official language being in use - can someone knowledgeable check this hypothesis? It is the Kazakh language, listed as Қазақша / Qazaqşa / قازاقشا on http://www.wikipedia.org/ see version group 100 000+, links to the Kazakh version. To boot, Kazakh is natively spoken in Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Russia, Iran. Now let's see how this complexity can be represented in this important map. C.Koltzenburg (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Korean Peninsula

1. Currently, South Korea is coloured as a mix of syllabary and logography The Korean alphabet isn't a syllabary any more than, say, the Vietnamese alphabet.
2. I think the current use of Chinese characters in South Korea can be neglected, as it is restricted to certain kinds of text, such as academic literature and (sometimes only headlines in) newspapers. That is, you may have a hard time trying to find some Chinese characters in the streets of Seoul. Hence, I think the colour should not be different from that of North Korea.

Wikipeditor 01:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I sympathize with both of your points, but I'm afraid official or established usage may justify the status quo.

1. Hangeul letters are certainly as alphabetic as any of the other alphabets' letters, and arguably take phonetic analysis to an even finer featural level than other alphabets. On the other hand, it is mandatory to arrange the letters in syllabic units. Clearly Korean is a unique case. A more accurate description would be something like "featural-alphabetic syllabary", but I don't know that such a term has achieved widespread usage, and "syllabary" is still the most used description. If the more accurate term can be shown to be established and not a neologism, I would support use of it here. However, simply labeling it as an alphabet would be misleading and leaving out the key feature of the script. The difference between Korean and others is comparable to the difference between alphabets, abugidas and abjads, which are distinguished on the map.
2. I agree hanja are becoming much rarer and that people outside Korea are sometimes not aware how far this trend has progressed. However, they are still officially part of the language and a mandatory part of the school curriculum. The trend in hanja use does need to be explained, but at more length in the article text. I would not object to giving South Korea a unique color separate from Japan (although it would bulk up the caption), but it is not yet ready to be equated with North Korea.

--JWB 21:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hanja is used to distinguish between words of similar sounding and different meaning. Similar to what was it, homonym? I don't think the incorporation of Chinese characters into Korean text makes Hangeul a featural alphabetic blah. And it's definitely not similar to Japanese stuffs either. King Sejong created the alphabet system to stand completely on its own, independent of the Chinese characters. Some ppl in court opposed the idea of creating a new alphabet system because it would somehow challenge the Chinese tributary system. With these things to consider, I'd say that Korean Hangeul be given its own "Hangeul" category. (Wikimachine 01:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

Hangeul does have its own category on the map. (with 2 colors reflecting use and nonuse of hanja in South and North Korea) "Featural" does not refer to inclusion of Chinese characters, but means that the shapes of most of the Hangeul letters were designed to reflect phonological features below the phoneme level, like place of articulation, which is not a dominant feature of any of the other scripts on the map. Hangeul is featural (partially but to a considerable degree) at the individual stroke level, alphabetic at the letter level, and syllabic at the block level. -JWB 14:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Korean peninsula (again)

Just curious, but isn't the same writing system used in both North and South Korea, and therefore they should be the same colour on the map? Astronaut (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hanja are officially abolished in North Korea. Though, North Korean students still learn them for historical literature, while use in South Korea has fallen off over recent decades. --JWB (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Singapore

There probably shouldn't be more special colours for single territories in the map, but with the resident population being about ¾ ethnic Chinese, and a Chinese language used in still more than ½ of homes, should Singapore perhaps be red? Is the Latin alphabet more common in public than Chinese characters are? I've never been there and have no idea of the the current situation. Wikipeditor 01:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been there and English is definitely the dominant language in public life (although much official signage is quadrilingual and a joy to polyglots) and apparently in much of private life too. What Chinese language there is in private life is split between Hokkien and other dialects for older people and Mandarin learned in school for younger Chinese. Younger Chinese seem to be considerably more fluent in English than in Mandarin. Private conversation is more spoken then written anyway, so perhaps less relevant to this discussion of writing systems.

I would not object to shading Singapore maybe 25% Chinese-script and a tiny bit of Tamil script, but this would be hard to do on one small dot. --JWB 21:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

China

How dominant are Chinese characters in Western China and other areas with sizeable non-Hàn populations? Has anybody been there recently? Wikipeditor 01:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

They are completely dominant for the Hàn populations of those regions, who are a majority or near-majority. The other nationalities also have to use Chinese in school and for public life outside their own neighborhoods.

If we introduce dots for minority languages or subregions, I think a few yellow and green dots are deserved, especially since there is actually room on the map for them. --JWB 21:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Xinjiang: Uyghur 45%, Han 41% + Hui 5% in 2000
• Xizang: Tibetan 93%, Han 6% + Hui 0.3% in 2000
• Qinghai: Han 54% + Hui 16%, Tibetan 23% in 2000
• Ningxia: Han 79% + Hui 20%, in 2000
• Nei Menggu: Han 79%, Mongol 17% in 2000

Hmm, the proportion of Han in the TAR is far less than the impression I've gotten, but if so perhaps yellow background is appropriate, depending on what kind of language use we are considering. I think it is appropriate to count the Hui with the Han linguistically. I'm not sure how much the Mongol minority writes in Traditional Mongolian, Cyrillic, or perhaps just in Chinese language for many urbanized Mongols, and not at all for some rural Mongols. --JWB 22:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Accessibility problem

Accessibility dispute

As stated in WP:COLOR, "ensure that colour is not the only way used to convey important information." In this case, probably the best option is to list the countries where each writing system is used (specifying at the end that Latin is used for the rest). Other possible solutions? Cheers —surueña 16:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Put that information in the image description. l'aqúatique ^talktome 20:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The image is not used in isolation but as a part of articles, and those articles list the writing systems. The caption is also supplied as part of an article, i.e. the caption at the image itself is never displayed except when you look at the image page in isolation. --JWB (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

EU countries lack borders

Why does this map show the EU as one single state? Wikipedia should be objective, not a place for EU fanboys. My country certainly isn’t Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ystad (talk • contribs) 17:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thaana

I can't find Thaana in the map. Help me look for it. Alexius08 (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Maldives, left of the tip of India. --JWB (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Moldavia

Moldavia should be Cyrillic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.217.248 (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's only true for the breakaway pro-Russian "Republic of Transnistria". Moldavian is written with the Latin alphabet in Moldavia proper. -- megA (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Syllabics beyond Nunavut

Canadian syllabics are used for Inuktitut in Northern Quebec as well as Nunavut. Also, Cree, Naskapi, and Oji-Cree (as well as northern Ojibway) write in syllabics. Please extend the syllabics range on your map to include these areas as well. --languagegeek (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Came here to say this, then I saw the comment is fifteen years old. — Muckapedia (talk) 19^e janv. 2023 18h21 (−4h) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 135.23.69.5 (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Criteria for selection

What are the criteria for selection? Official at a provincial level? The Tibetan abugida, Arabic, Korean, and Mongol are as official in China as Syllabics is in Canada. Much of Ethiopia uses the Latin script. Much of Eritrea uses the Ethiopic script. Etc. Shouldn't we be clear what we are mapping here? kwami (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please! BTW, in Southern China, the official Zhuang language is written with Latin characters. -- megA (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The map was originally by nation but has expanded to some large first-level divisions of large countries. It weights dominant use of a script in public life more heavily than being in a government-published list of official languages.

Arabic and Tibetan are currently indicated by dots in China, Korean and Mongol are not. I think the former have a somewhat stronger case because Uighurs and Tibetans are a majority of the population or nearly so in their home regions, while the proportion of Mongols in Inner Mongolia is much less. My feeling is that the Zhuang Latin script is less used and [1], one of the references in Zhuang language, corroborates this.

Eritrea is striped for Ethiopic, Arabic and Latin, Ethiopia is currently not. My understanding is that while regional languages are listed as official in Ethiopia, national media and business are in Amharic, and that some regional languages may be written in either Ethiopic or Latin. Googling, it looks like an Oromo Latin-script newspaper was only published for a brief time and small circulation. --JWB (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, it is my feeling that solid colors indicating two writing systems should be replaced by appropriate stripes. I know it's quite a task but, at least to me, solid colors seem misleading. But maybe it's my taste only... -- megA (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually feel they communicate clearly because the light colors are similar but weaker versions of the darker color for the corresponding non-Latin script. The regions involved are small compared to the world and stripes will blend in when the map is rendered at small sizes. --JWB (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I actually think you are right. -- megA (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of grey

It seems to me that the use of grey to indicate use of Latin derived scripts is a little needlessly confusing. The practice for these maps in other images on Wikipedia seems to be for grey to represent the neutral, unknown or zero state. For people familiar with this usage it appears as if the Latinate areas actually have no writing system at all. Another colour would help to make the image more immediately intelligible. --129.11.12.201 (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed in a section above. Latin script is very much the default script in today's world. It is the primary script in an overwhelming majority of countries (around 75%) and the widely known secondary script in the remainder. For a country to use Latin script is completely unremarkable, especially since the reader is reading this very article in Latin-script English and therefore familiar with the script, so grey is completely appropriate. --JWB (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I'd disagree that the grey indicates a "default" state in this sense. It would represent null script. In fact, seeing as this image partly depicts "official scripts", why are countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom marked as using any official script at all? Those countries technically speaking have no official language. --129.11.12.201 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Having no script is an absurdity, so not a possible interpretation, especially for readers known to be able to read English. Besides, the interpretation is given in the caption right under the map.

The criterion is what script is primarily used in public life (again, this was discussed in another talk section above), not whether a script is on an official list. I'll modify the caption to try to make this clearer. --JWB (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed it's absurd, but I'm not claiming that the map can be misinterpreted, merely pointing out that it should be changed to make immediate interpretation much easier by bringing it in line with the standards used on similar maps used for other articles. A well designed illustration should do everything it can to aid understanding for the reader, not just through explanatory notes/legends or forcing the reader to work it out for themselves, but by making the image immediately and intuitively intelligible. Otherwise there's really no point having the image at all. --129.11.12.201 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel this is the most informative and highly intelligible design. It is also good for communicating the convention of weakening a color to indicate near-equal use of Latin script and the script indicated by the other color. Alphabetic scripts are represented by a continuum of colors from blue to gray, which was designed to naturally include gray. --JWB (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the criterion of indicating which script is used primarily in public life is also problematic, considering that something like a sixth of the population of the planet use no script in their "public life" (being illiterate). --129.11.12.201 (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This is yet another complete non-issue. It does not change the script used by the literate portion of the population. It is also again unclear what if anything you are asking for here. Trying to include literacy rate in the coloring along with all the script data would be too much. It is simpler for the reader interested in literacy rates to go to the existing articles and maps on that topic. --JWB (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the use of grey is confusing since grey is the color of a blank map, see File:BlankMap-World-v5-EU.png. A phrase search on Commons for "no data" suggests that grey is used to indicate "no data". Moreover, latin script based wikis aren't the only projects using the file, see ta:எழுத்துமுறைகளின்_பட்டியல். This issue is preferably solved before the map is getting more widely used. jonkerz♠ 18:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not a problem that grey is the color of blank maps - please read the discussion above. Latin script is still by far the most common script worldwide and the default international script, no matter whether you are discussing it in English or Tamil. --JWB (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I did read the discussions above, and judging from me being the third editor having a problem with it — the confusing use of "null grey" to indicate latin — it's not a non-issue. Only a minor one, but still an issue. Your 2nd point is my 2nd point as well, but the other way around. To say latin is the most used international script is non-controversial, but saying it's the default, as in "World's default script used in everyday communications" (nothing you're guilty to saying) — in my opinion — is, because of the systemic bias towards Western culture. The map is supposed to show where which script is used, not to show which areas are using a script differing from the most widely used international one. Well, I've made my point and don't feel like this is a huge problem, at least not a problem that won't sort itself out given some time. By the way, the map is awesome, thanks for uploading it! jonkerz♠ 05:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an easy objection to think of and raise, but not one which actually holds up. Most significantly, the map is clearly captioned where it is used, and the gray areas correspond to what are already well-known to readers as countries where Latin script is used as the primary script, so there is no actual chance of confusion. There is no need to color most of the map with a loud color drowning out other information when a low-key color works so well.

I'm not sure exactly what argument you're making with regard to current or historical dominance of Western culture. Western political and economic dominance has passed its peak, but the Latin script is now firmly entrenched worldwide not just for international uses but as a secondary script in purely domestic use. Chinese kids learn Latin-script Hanyu Pinyin before they learn Chinese characters. Bollywood movie posters tend to be in Latin script instead of Devanagari or others of the multitude of Indian scripts. Computer users everywhere usually type on keyboards that have Latin-letter labels or dual Latin and local-script labels. --JWB (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

2017

I also have a problem with the use of this particular grey, which generally means "unknown" or "not applicable" on other maps on Wikipedia. A legitimate use of for the default grey colour would be for the part of Greenland that is unpopulated. I understand the desire to have contrast between latin and other writing systems, but perhaps a low saturation bluish-grey could be used instead? --109.154.202.109 11:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Uyghur alphabet is not an abjad

Even though based on Arabic script, Uyghur alphabet is not an abjad because the vowels are obligatory and are represented by separate letters. Marxolang (talk) 06:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That change does make it an alphabet in functional terms. However the most obvious characteristic of the script is still that it uses Arabic letters, and any mutual intelligibility between Uyghur script and others is with other Arabic scripts, not with other alphabets. The primary focus of this graphic is charting dominant usage of scripts around the world, with classification of those scripts by functional type as only a secondary aim. --JWB (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

[Forwarded from en:File talk:Writing systems worldwide.png by Athaenara (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)]

Mongolian

Mongolian is written in two writing systems, Cyrillic and Mongolian, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolia - should be great to see this reflected in the map. A very useful map, by the way, and I think it is a great idea to name any languages in the legend only and not on the image itself. C.Koltzenburg (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise! I believe traditional Mongolian script has not attained everyday use in Mongolia and that Cyrillic is standard. Mongol is written in Mongolian script in China, but Chinese is dominant there. --JWB (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

South Sudan, Mauretania

It sounds like independent South Sudan is now giving little priority to Arabic. I should change South Sudan to plain Latin.

Any more detailed info on Mauretania and other Sahel countries welcome. --JWB (talk)

Regional and minority scripts

So I created File:Writing systems worldwide.svg, but it's not currently equivalent to this one as I left out the dots indicating "regional and minority scripts." The reason for this is that including minority scripts seems an obvious slippery slope (Where to stop? Should we put red dots in Vancouver?), and I think we should only include scripts with some form of recognition. We already have File:WritingSystemsoftheWorld4.png (and 3 and 2 as well), which has good representation of minority scripts.

However even including only regional scripts with official recognition is difficult, as 1. many countries recognize a wide range of minority languages without specifying official areas and 2. China. Friggin' China is a mess, even more so than the map currently gives it credit for. Honestly, I think we should make a map just for China (and another for India, or maybe just one for East/South/Mainland Southeast Asia) and will someday if I have the time.

Therefore, I propose using the standard of "official or co-official in a first-level subdivision of a [:en:Federation|federal state]]" as the cutoff. I already have Nunuvat and Southern India on the svg, and I believe that using that standard, the only things I might have to add to my map are Tatarstan and the Somali and Oromia regions of Ethiopia. Although since Tatarstan's use of Latin is on shaky legal footing, and Somali and Oromo are only "working languages" rather than official, I'm not sure if I should.

However, if I apply this standard, while it's a consistent standard, it means having an svg version that isn't identical to the png. There are three options then. 1. Develop a consistent standard for this map and apply it to this map (either the one I proposed, or some other, like official or co-official in any state). If that can be done, I'm willing to update the svg to that standard. 2. link the vector version anyways 3. create alternate versions of both this and the vector version, so that users can decide which they want to do.

Obviously I like option 3 the least, because it makes a lot of redundant work, and addresses none of the issues that I'm trying to address (namely that this image is whim-of-user with no consistent standard) in the svg. Thoughts? Quintucket (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Why Korea is mixed w/ teal(Cyrilic)?

Writing systems in Korea are Hangul and Hanja. Not Cyrilic.--121.145.243.251 14:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The IP is right. Alumnum (talk · contribs) did something perverse to the Korean peninsula, even if not exactly the colour match for Cyrillic. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. My intention in making that edit was to reflect that Korean used both a featural alphabet and (occasionally) logographics, but it seems I mistook the colours. Fixed. - Alumnum (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrong map regarding China's territory which is clearly biased towards India

The map is inconsistent with the territory it depicts since it demonstrates China's territorty (red in this case) without both South Tibet/Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin, the former of which is under India's control while the latter of which is under China's control (See en: Sino-Indian border dispute). Please simply tag Aksai Chin as red to resolve this inconsistency, thanks!. --123.161.169.73 03:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Tifinagh alphabet missing

The Tifinagh alphabet sould be added, It's used in North Africa in official and unofficial contexts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YesIn (talk • contribs) 11:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

According to the map legend, there's supposed to be a color for "Arabic and Neo-Tifinagh", but that apparently dropped out of the map a number of versions ago... AnonMoos (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hebrew in Brunei?

The map currently has a light green (hebrew) dot for brunei. My knowledge of brunei is admittedly limited but I'm pretty sure that isn't correct --Alextgordon (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

You can thank Alumnum for the mess introduced in December, 2014. Instead of editing the palette (to tweak appearance), the user inconsistently replaced several flood fills with own things. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

EU and Koreas

Why EU countries are shown as one country? And why North Korea and South Korea are shown without the border between them?

It's simply not true, that EU is one country and North and South Korea are reunited, so this should be changed. Av824 (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The original intention apparently was that South Korea would have the "Featural-alphabet + limited logographic" color, while North Korea would have the "Featural-alphabet" color. I'm not sure of the need for different colors, since the current use of Chinese characters in South Korea is more ornamental than functional, but showing both with the ""Featural-alphabet + limited logographic" color is definitely wrong... AnonMoos (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not complain about the colours. I was talking about the lack of borders on this map. Av824 (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, for over a month now no one answered on topic, so I changed it. Av824 (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Colours not distinguishable

On my screen, the colours "Pure logographic" and "Mixed logographic and syllabaries" are essentially indistinguishable on the map, meaning that China and Japan look identical, which I believe is not the intention. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A00:23C5:4B91:AB00:D411:42A6:6280:CE4B (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, "Featural-alphabet" is shown in the key but apparently is unused on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A00:23C5:4B91:AB00:D411:42A6:6280:CE4B (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Unintelligible colors

I read the above description of how the colors were chosen, it was very thorough and... academic.

In actual depiction? This map is a nightmare on a number of levels... I can't tell the border between the two largest groups in Asia because the shades of green are so similar. Grey is a bad choice for all Latin languages for reasons described above. It is very hard to glean information from this map.