Gedmatch calculators on Vahaduo

[Jana]

I think for Spain 4-7 averages would be enough (NW, NE, SW, SE, Basque and Canarian + one general average).
Italy and Greece require more but they should be in resonable amount (10-15 for each maybe? others will know better)

[MoroLP]

Agree, but Greece has far more genetic diversity than Spain for example. Iberians are very homogenous considering how big and populous their peninsula is.
Greece has Anatolian Greeks, Pontics, Islanders, Mainlanders, Cypriots, they are all very different from each other. But even with that having almost 30 averages is simply far too much.

Of course, as Leto said, some countries/nations have a more complex administrative division, genetic history, and so on. In other words, a few factors should be taken into account, but too many averages are too many averages.

[MoroLP]

I think for Spain 4-7 averages would be enough (NW, NE, SW, SE, Basque and Canarian + one general average).
Italy and Greece require more but they should be in resonable amount (10-15 for each maybe? others will know better)

Spain should have 6-7 regional averages at least. Yes, Spanish regional averages are similar in comparison to Greece and Italy. Take all K13 averages and place them at Vahaduo Custom PCA, Italy has an enormous range, far larger than Greece/Greeks, largest in Europe as a matter of fact and perhaps even in the world for a single nation, and as such would be best to keep all Italian administrative regions averages (except those 4 sub-regional mentioned before).

[Leto]

I think for Spain 4-7 averages would be enough (NW, NE, SW, SE, Basque and Canarian + one general average).
Italy and Greece require more but they should be in resonable amount (10-15 for each maybe? others will know better)

Davidski's Spanish avgs are more or less based on the autonomous communities

[Jana]

Davidski's Spanish avgs are more or less based on the autonomous communities

Yeah, pretty sure quite a few of them are basically identical. I know country like Portugal doesn't even require regional averages, they are so homogenous
Catalans drift towards French, Baques have their own drift (and people living near Basque Lands) and Canarians have strong north African input.
But other than that there aren't huge genetic differences in Iberia, they have more differences on W-E cline than N-S as far as I know.

[Dunai]

No, it's not. Each one of them is quite different, and Romania is almost a 20m country. The one that could be removed perhaps is Romania_Wallachia, since it's the average of Muntenia and Oltenia.

Both Moldavia and Wallachia were principalities, Muntenia, Oltenia, South and North Moldavia are just way too detailed narrowing down, even if they exist in reality. But the people in these two principalities were either Moldavians or Wallachians, so just two for them would be plenty enough. In my opinion Dobruja can be added to Wallachia, since it was populated by Wallachians after uniting with Romania. Regarding Transylvania, you can pretty much add both Maramures and Crisana to it, since they are too small to exist separately and are culturally connected with Transylvania. In my opinion even Banat can be added to one Transylvanian average, since they are also way too small to exist separately and don't differ much genetically from Transylvanians. 3 main regions for Romanians is better, than having so many neighboring small regions that are very similar to one another.

[Leto]

@Lucas, I've renamed the Russians, it's better when they start with the word Russian. Erzya_Mordovian instead of Erzya is more understandable. At least people can google Mordovia and see it on the map.

Russian_Kargopol,24.92,48.36,7.52,5.54,1.50,0.04,2.49,0.23,6.67,1.70,0.23,0.53,0.26
Russian_Kostroma,26.19,48.54,6.21,5.35,3.19,0.39,1.05,0.69,6.37,1.16,0.52,0.19,0.16
Russian_Pinega,24.72,51.94,5.05,2.82,0.39,0.58,1.58,0.24,9.96,1.96,0.27,0.31,0.23
Russian_Smolensk,28.16,48.47,8.74,5.82,3.83,1.69,1.38,0.17,0.85,0.43,0.38,0.06,0.01
Russian_Southwest,25.91,47.21,8.25,6.80,6.26,0.55,1.00,0.22,2.14,0.81,0.43,0.19,0.23
Erzya_Mordovian,21.08,50.52,6.40,7.60,2.62,0.32,1.78,0.49,7.11,1.50,0.00,0.25,0.33

[MoroLP]

...3 main regions for Romanians is better, than having so many neighboring small regions that are very similar to one another.

No, it's really not, too low, look at Vahaduo PCA. I think that for Romania we also should have 6-7 regional, something along NUTS 2 statistical regions of Romania? Ion, do you agree, or at least try making them if we already don't have them?

[Dunai]

No, it's really not, too low, look at Vahaduo PCA. I think that for Romania we also should have 6-7 regional, something along NUTS 2 statistical regions of Romania? Ion, do you agree, or at least try making them if we already don't have them?

What you posted are Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics regions, made in the 2000s for EU funds. What I'm speaking are historical considerations, and what I sad are based on historical but also modern day genetic reality of Romanians. For example there are some differences between both Northern and Southern Transdanubia and Alföld Hungarians genetically, but still opted to only one average for each, because why should I divide Hungary more when it's not that important. One average for each historic region is more than enough, no matter if it has some differences between the south and north, east and west of that region.

[Ion Basescul]

Both Moldavia and Wallachia were principalities, Muntenia, Oltenia, South and North Moldavia are just way too detailed narrowing down, even if they exist in reality. But the people in these two principalities were either Moldavians or Wallachians, so just two for them would be plenty enough. In my opinion Dobruja can be added to Wallachia, since it was populated by Wallachians after uniting with Romania. Regarding Transylvania, you can pretty much add both Maramures and Crisana to it, since they are too small to exist separately and are culturally connected with Transylvania. In my opinion even Banat can be added to one Transylvanian average, since they are also way too small to exist separately and don't differ much genetically from Transylvanians. 3 main regions for Romanians is better, than having so many neighboring small regions that are very similar to one another.

There are differences and all of them exist for a reason.

Moldavia_North is mixed with Ukrainians, especially those from Bukovina.
Moldavia_South is intermediary between Moldavia_North and Wallachia. Probably one of the "purest" regions in the country, as it didn't have significant historic communities.
Muntenia is mixed with Bulgarians.
Dobruja is a recent colony, populated by people from all over the country and then also some Turks and Tatars mixed in.
Oltenia had a Hungarian presence, which is also noticeable genetically.
Banat had a strong migration from Oltenia.
Crisana is noticeably mixed with Hungarians.
Maramures is like Moldavia_North, as in mixed with Ukrainians, but not as significantly.
And Transylvania is similar to Crisana, but also received significant migration from Wallachia and Moldavia in communist times.

I am not consolidating them, as it will compromise accuracy for no reason at all. For a country of Romania's size and diversity, 10 averages is fair. Better cut the Ethiopian regions or some of the exotic populations from Southeast Asia and Africa, which is not meaningful to most users on this forum.