Talk:Quetzal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This should probably be a disambiguation page; should we put the stuff at Quetzal (bird) and Quetzal (currency), or can the bird stay at its scientific name and can we put the currency here? Jeronimo

I'm not so sure - the currency is named for the bird, after all? Part of my thinking this is because the bird has a lot of history and myth related to it, and it might not be apparent to a reader that it's the bird they're looking for? I guess the currency would need some more prominent mention in that case though, otherwise that gets hard to see. Then again, maybe the disambiguation page could have some qualifying info on it - but then someone will object to *that*. All this would probably be contrary to rules, I guess. Just my thoughts - OlofE

Talking to myself... the current disambiguation page is an attempt at making sure any reader knows which one they want. -- OlofE

My instinct tells me that it would be best to have the bird here and the currency elsewhere if the currency was in fact named for the bird. If this is the case then a sentence in the first paragraph should mention this fact. --mav

[edit] Quetzal and Resplendent Q.

Any thoughts on moving this article to Resplendent Quetzal and starting a new Quetzal article for Pharomachrus (and Euptilotis)? I realize that when people say "quetzal" they usually mean the resplendent one, but reorganizing it would straighten out this article a lot. —JerryFriedman 15:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

At first consideration, I'm mildly against it, though willing to be persuaded. Indeed, I think most references to "quetzal" refer to "Resplendent". Might a reworking of the article with sub-headers be a better solution? Would we really have enough material for non-stubby multiple articles? -- Infrogmation 12:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I gave it a shot (partly because most of the work will be useful if the article is split). My main reasons for continuing to want separate articles are that the taxoboxes would be a bit different and that Wikipedia has lots of articles on individual species—this species deserves one at least as much as many of the others. An article on "Quetzal" would be just a taxobox, a couple of paragraphs, and an external link, until somebody gets a picture of some "non-resplendent" quetzal. —JerryFriedman 16:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Now that the Golden-headed Quetzal has its own page, it's got to be time for the Resplendent Quetzal too. —JerryFriedman 03:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avocados

The article before the recent edits by D. Farr stated that Quetzals eat the fruit of the laurel family, a member of which is the Avocado. However, as the Avocado article states, the seed dispersal animal(s) for the Avocado itself is likely extinct. The Quetzal eats much smaller fruits produced by its relatives. It would be incorrect to say that the Avocado is their favorite food or that they disperse its seed. I removed those assertions.

It is verifiable that Quetzals carve their nest holes. I found mention of Quetzal and Quetzalcoatl with Google. That edit may be verifiable and I left it in the article. [1] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

in Costa Rica at least, the fruits eaten by the Resplendent Quetzal are called wild avocados. jimfbleak 05:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo quality?

Is this the only free photo that we can use for a quetzal? They have such distinct faces and tails, and this image shows neither. I'm going to hunt for a more editorially effective image. If anyone thinks that the current image is significant for any reason, please let me know here.

Update: I've attempted to contact the photographer of this image in an attempt to get permission to use it: http://www.camacdonald.com/birding/ResplendentQuetzal(SB).jpg Asarkees 16:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Remember we have Image:Kwezal engraving.png which formerly illustrated this article, apparently unused at present (why?). -- Infrogmation 03:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded a picture I got permission to upload, but the message from the photographer was kind of sketchy :(. Check it out, you guys. Let me know if I have to ask him to clarify. It's such a good picture! Asarkees