Talk:Campa languages

	Language portal 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of the Americas

	Indigenous peoples of the Americas portal 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Very bad article[edit]

I think this article is very bad for the following reasons:

First of all, the name should be "Kampan languages". It can be found in the literarture as "Campa, Campan, Kampa or Kampan". Regarding "Campa" and "Kampa", these are the Spanish names, to which -n should be added in English. However, this is not the worst thing, given that several names are used in the literature.

The listed languages must be as in the Glottolog: Nanti, Caquinte, Nomatsiguenga, Machigenga, Asháninka and Ashéninka. The article separates Axininca, but this must be included in Ashéninka. The article lists Pucapucari, and the link brings to Nanti, which is the name used in the literature. Moreover, the article says that "Ethnologue adds Nanti", which is the same as Pucapucari.

The article gives the only reference of the Glottolog, but what the Glottolog says isn't reflected in the article. Kaufman (1994) is quoted, but the reference is not given.

In the following days, when I find the time, I'm going to change the article radically in the lines expressed above. If someone has something to say, please say it. Manissero (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]