Talk:Toucan

Citation Generator

Link to a helpful resource—a reference generator. --Wikitrevor (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Photo

The top link: http://www.birdtimes.com/breeds/toucan.shtml seems to be broken, so i've replaced it with another one. This website looks quite good, but feel free to change it if you can find a better one, or if the original link becomes unbroken.

Is a pic of a toucan I think it's an emerald that you might want to use. Belizian 19:07, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's A good shot, but it is a bit dark... Needs some photoshop-eing :)

Looks like a Keel-Billed Toucan. :) --Mitternacht90 23:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Gallery

I'd recommend we keep the gallery removed, Wikipedia isn't a collection of images Neo2000 11:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

{{common-target}} At least it has been today. GhostPirate 18:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Template above has been deleted - Martinp23 13:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

what do toucans drink —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.234.203 (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Species list

Why isn't there a species list for this family, or if there is where is it? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Seem like this page gets heavily vandalized. I put the species list back it was deleted by some moron months ago. talk

Neotropics or neotropic ecozone?

As per the article neotropics, there's a difference, and from http://www.birdtimes.com/breeds/toucan.shtml and neotropic ecozone it seems like neotropic ecozone would be the correct choice. Could anyone with more knowledge of the subject verify this? Obonicus 18:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Probable vandalism

Admittedly I'm no authority on toucans, but I know they don't eat rhinos, nor do they attack bears, and I'm not sure one would ever encounter a bald eagle, let alone pick a fight with one. I've been able to find no other mention on the internet of toucans eating fish or chicken, and the claim that they are the most beautiful bird in the world is clearly an opinion rather that a fact. So I've removed two paragraphs of this article on these assumptions. Tombrabbin 14:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted some clear vandalism at the top of the page - some moron had typed a message to a friend that had nothing to do with the subject. Jeff.Powelson (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Expanding on toucans, help needed

I've started expanding a bit on this article, as I'm currently doing a small project on toucans as part of a course in systematic zoology. The info I've added is all from Handbook of the Birds of the World, officially endorsed by wikiproject:birds, so it should be alright. I'd love some input on how to continue to improve the article though, for instance I'm not sure "Morphology" is a good headline as it might sound too technical. Also, I'm unsure what to do with the species list - why are the species of two of the genera listed but not the others, I guess it's just because there's fewer of them? I don't like the inconsistency. And strictly speaking, for instance S. reinwardtii consists of two subspecies, S. r. reinwardtii and S. r. langsdorffii - how do we best reflect this in an indented species list? - Furiku 18:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has no references at all, so anything you can add with (preferably in-line) refs would be good. Species list should be consistent - all genera or all species. reinwardtii ssp don't need to be here (and won't be if only genera listed) better in genus or species articles Jimfbleak (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

two ways of in-lining, if you choose to do that (bit tedious) - see Striped Kingfisher and Blackbird as examples. First is easier, second, i think, looks better Jimfbleak (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I will remove the species and leave just the genera, as you say it should be consistent. I will also look into references on monday when I have access to my sources again! Furiku (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

question...

I left a note on a contributor's talk page, asking them to explain this excision.

They objected to a paragraph that included a URL they called a "commercial link".

I told them I didn't understand their objection to the link; and that they removed very important information from the article. I suggested it would have have been more appropriate to have unlinked the URL, and left the information that the Yerba beans need to pass through a Toucan to germinate, followed by a {{cn}}.

If this excision isn't explained here, I think it should be reverted.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete this, but it clearly is a spamlink to a commercial page, which begins "shop for yerba mate". This means that it cannot be taken as a reliable source. If the information is true, and not a puff for a product, you should be able to find a neutral academic source for the information, jimfbleak (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That was me who deleted it, and unfortunately I just noticed the message left on my talk page a few weeks too late. Anyway, the reason I deleted it was the user who added the link was also adding it to several other articles. Combined with the fact that it's a site maintained by a commercial interest, the link set off my spam-dar and so I removed it. If I was hasty, I apologize and do not object to it being re-added by an established editor. ... discospinster _talk 17:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)