This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Chendytes is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not
substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles
This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on
extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction articles
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the
importance scale.
Move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I cant find any compelling evidence that "Law's Diving-goose" is a name actually used for Chendytes lawi outside of wikipedia and wiki mirrors. Google scholar searches show no results for the term "Law's Diving-goose" but a number for Chendytes lawi.--
Kevmin (
talk)
23:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
However, responding to FunkMonk's comment on prehistoric species, the alternative is merging the two species into one article on the genus. Either way, the current arrangement of two articles should be changed. — Jts1882 |
talk13:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge here, as noted by
FunkMonk, the WP:Paleo guideline is cover the taxa in at the genus level, meaning Chendytes milleri shouold be merged into this article, with appropriate clean-up of the article at the same time.--
Kevmin§21:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge here as per above. While there is information on Chendytes, it is still an obscure prehistoric genus. Prehistoric genera and species are treated at the genus article. --
SilverTiger12 (
talk)
22:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Exploitation"
The repeated use of "exploitation" is very loaded/subjective phrasing. The clear implication is that humans were overbearing predators destroying the ducks' populations, but if humans had been preying on Chendytes for over 8,000 years, then surely there must have been some level of stability in that relationship?
64.50.95.2 (
talk)
18:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)reply