Talk:Chilihueque

Merge?

It has been proposed to merge this article into Llama. For those who whish to do so please use the normal procedure for merges (Help:Merging#Proposing a merger). Dentren | ^Talk 18:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

As stated by the cited source in that article the chilihueques status among S.A. camelids not known. The cited article says:

En sectores ubicados más al norte la variedad presente seguramente era la llama, más al sur existieron variedades ahora extinguidas llamadas Hueques o Chilihueques. Los animales distribuidos en Chile central posiblemente estaban emparentados con las alpacas y llamas del norte o ser una variedad con procesos de domesticación incipientes y de bastante parecido con el guanaco. [1].

Dentren | ^Talk 12:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't state it is a valid species, it only states what it might be related to, or that it might be on some step of domestication. That does not warrant a taxobox (only for valid taxa), and hardly even an article separate from the "parent" article. The text is so ambiguous that it could mean anything, but it does not make any attempt to conclude what it actually was. If the article is kept, it needs to be rewritten, so it doesn't indicate that this is a valid species. No taxobox, and the wording must be changed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Restoring it to its own article does not validate it as an own species, don't need to worry about that. There are for example articles on many cryptids that does not validate them as true, verified species. Unless you can forge a consensus for the move the page will need to be reverted to the original state. Dentren | ^Talk 13:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC).

In any case, I repeat: "If the article is kept, it needs to be rewritten, so it doesn't indicate that this is a valid species. No taxobox, and the wording must be changed.". FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)