Talk:Chendytes

	Paleontology portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Birds Low‑importance

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Extinction Low‑importance

	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
Low	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.

The result of the move request was: page moved —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Law's Diving-goose → Chendytes lawi —

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]

Support, even if Law's Diving-goose is used a little. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:22, 16 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.

Thanks for the move innotata. --Kevmin (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

Clear concensus to merge, which I have implemented. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I propose this page be split into Chendytes and Chendytes lawi. There were two species of Chendytes, and Chendytes milleri now has its own page. For this page, 'tis time to split. Have one page for the genus as a whole and another page for C. lawi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach Varmitech (talk • contribs) 23:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC) @Dinoguy2:[reply]

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me — and indeed necessary, if there are now two species recognized in the genus. MeegsC (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With prehistoric species, we generally cover them in the genus article. FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Seems to me that this article should be moved to Chendytes lawi and then the redirect left at Chendytes changed to a brief article on the genus: "Chendytes is a genus in the family ... There are two species ...". — Jts1882 | talk 13:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 | talk 13:43, 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.--Kev min § 21:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge here and refocus per FunkMonk. There's not really any reason to have a separate article for yet another species stub. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:03, 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]