Talk:Resplendent quetzal

message: Do they really swallow avocados whole? I'm having trouble picturing a little bird doing that. I thought avocados were toxic to birds. ~Lu  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.88.179 (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The wild avocados they eat are nothing like the shop ones we eat, they are much smaller Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 07:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avocados 

message: But how big is the Resplendent Quetzal? Anthony Appleyard 07:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: 67.162.50.93 06:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, the problem is finding a non-copyright alternative to my pic - previous replacements have all been removed as unsourced or copyright violations. Jimfbleak.talk.07:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts regarding the photograph 

message: I rated this as importance=mid due to the prominance of this species in the history and culture of several countries in the region. Srice13 16:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The ancient Mayas and Aztecs viewed" (not "view") the quetzal etc." because there are no more ancient Mayas and Aztecs, only modern ones.  Likewise there are no more "Pre-Columbian Central American civilizations".  If we have a reliable source saying that a significant number of living people consider the quetzal to be divine, worship Quetzalcoatl, etc., we could change some tenses.  —JerryFriedman 01:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They look pretty divine (: Jimfbleak 17:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Central America 

message: :Image:1989 halfQuetzal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:1989 halfQuetzal.jpg

message: There was a noticeable formatting problem in this article where the lines of the categories overlapped the species info box (also the 140px picture was blown up to 225px, therefore losing resolution; annoying but minor). I fixed it by removing the unnecessary TOC box code that was throwing it off. I wasn't signed in and someone reverted it, obviously without looking. I undid his revert (once), but I know better than to revert-war. If you see this problem again, check for the TOC box that it doesn't need, as WP automatically does TOC on long-enough articles. And the moral of the story: don't revert unsigned in edits without checking that they're legit. Garnet avi (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting Problem 

message: This page says they hover. Do resplendents do, too?  TREKphiler hit me ♠  16:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything about hovering there. Is that the page you meant? Anyway, my few sources don't mention hovering. —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 02:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feeling harriered 

message: Nominated Feb 10 2010;
Support:
# Sabine's Sunbird  talk 07:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Resplendent Quetzal]] for November 2010

message: An IP posted this just about an hour ago, and I reverted it because its uncited, and looks very questionable. Is it vandalism? —focus 00:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure as yet. Sounds dogy but you never know...will look around. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that some people believe(d?) that the Resplendent Quetzal has some sort of mystic/spiritual powers. Is precognition one of them? Dunno. Quite a creepy story though. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP vandalism? 

message: Here are some journal articles to investigate, from a web of science search. Be good to figure out which ones are useful and which are too esoteric or off topic etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Web of science search - journal articles to investigate

message: "Until recently, it was thought that the Resplendent Quetzal could not be bred or held for any long time in captivity, and indeed it was noted for usually killing itself soon after being captured or caged."
Is this even possible?? 131.130.16.86 (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It could starve itself or fly into walls AlexWolfx (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They did die in captivity.  Unless somebody can figure out how it happened, the article should probably just say that they were popularly believed to kill themselves (if even that has a source). —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 16:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, this seems to be a record of captive breeding in 1943. —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 16:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bird killing itself? 

message: Substituted at 04:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: While reviewing for GA, there might be some unattributed, very close paraphrasing. See here. I changed the  in a fairly minor way, although it isn't much better in prose compared to the original, still, IMO it's better considering the original is very close. I've added more examples to the GA review in bold, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close Paraphrasing? 

message: IMHO these are probably most of my suggestions, will look at some minor c/e, but will place on hold for now. VickKiang (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Hold