This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.MesoamericaWikipedia:WikiProject MesoamericaTemplate:WikiProject MesoamericaMesoamerica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
The source given to attribute these is very controversial in linguistic studies. The Kaufman & Justeson 2009 source currently in the article is dedicated to debunking it. I have written out an outline of what the literature says on the chocolate talk page re; cacao, but the Nahuatl origin of chocolate is also contested, and it is not true that "there is no real doubt that the word chocolate comes from Nahuatl." I am not saying it isn't, just that it needs some attribution or recognition of it being contentious. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am reviewing this article for URFA/2020, and I am concerned that this article no longer meets the featured article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:
The lead, at six paragraphs, is longer than what is recommended at MOS:LEADLENGTH
There is a lot of uncited text, including entire paragraphs and the entire "Numerals" section,
I do not think the "Sample text" section should be in the article, as there are several examples in various sections.
The "Demography and distribution" section needs to be updated.
I don't, but the info isn't unique to whatever source I used. For example, in Silver & Miller (1998) American Indian Languages, p.64, they have "cempohualtzonxiquipilli" for 64 million (slightly different orthography), with the prefix cen- for "one unit of" and the rest of the morphemes as we explain them. That is, you can continue to count beyond that in units of pohualtzonxiquipilli.
I also can't tell you if my source had the orthography we have now, or if I normalized it to match the article. Given how variable Nahuatl orthography is, it should be normalized across the bulk of this article, with a section on the variation. — kwami (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"poaltzonxiquipilli" is probably the source's orthography, given that it's dated "poal" rather than more usual "pohual" or "powal". Regardless, it diverges from the article and IMO should be retransliterated to match, even if that means a linguistic transcription rather than orthography. — kwami (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]