Talk:Scops owl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Biology Portal Scops owl 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. Please do not substitute this template.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do: edit MAJOR taxonomic overhaul (see here) Create Galloanserae For new cat: Category:Natural history of the Americas, replace "Hummingbird" article (by Some collaboration, hopefully) an article: along title LINE of: Hummingbirds--the bird of the Americas

Should it be Scops Owl? Kingturtle 17:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The article refers to all the birds in the Otus genus, so scops owls, just like kingfishers, woodpeckers and other group names. There is a species called Scops Owl, Otus scops, in Europe, where it is the only scops owl, but it is named as Eurasian Scops Owl in the world listings to avoid confusion with the many tropical species of scops owl. jimfbleak

Contents 1 References 1.1 Megascops 2 Screech owls? 3 Reverted edits 4 Vandalism?

[edit] References

Anyonw willing to redo the references to conform to WP standards (i.e. <ref> </ref>)? It looks like the artice came out of a high school paper this way, and it's kind of annoying to see almost-random words and a number stuck in there. I'd do it, but I'm not familiar with this... --SheeEttin 00:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Megascops

As this seems to be a separate genus to Otus - shouldn't it get its own genus page rather than redirect here? I'm not an expert by any means so I would appreciate some info Madmedea 18:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screech owls?

I just started copy editing this, and am super confused by the switching between "scops owl" and "screech owl" in the first few paragraphs. Huh? Jessicapierce 03:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted edits

I don't understand why the few edits I made here today were reverted. I clarified the first sentence, fixed an odd verb, changed an incorrect singular noun to the correct plural form, removed a context-free, baffling acronym which appeared at the end of a sentence, removed the needless word "female" from a sentence that was about egg-laying owls, and made a few other little corrections. Owls are not my area of expertise, but grammar and punctuation certainly are. jimfbleak, can you please clarify? If I've screwed something up here, I'd really like to understand. Jessicapierce 07:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to add, I don't understand why your edits were reverted as you had improved the text. Also revert should only be used very carefully, normally to remove vandalism, not just because you don't agree with someone's edits. Let's hope jimfbleak replies Madmedea 10:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I replied directly to Jessicapierce. There was no suggestion that her actions were vandalism, and I apologised for just reverting to remove the errors that had been put in. I'll look again to see if i knocked out anything that should have stayed. jimfbleak 10:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted my own edits, and just changed the bits that needed changing. I can see that the s' can be correct, depends how you interpret the sentence. jimfbleak 11:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's all understood now, thank you! Jessicapierce 23:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

I'm pretty sure this constitutes as vandalism, so I removed it, but I want to make sure. In the list of foods that scops owls eat it said "large fat boys and small spuds!" I believe this constitutes as vandalism? Australian Raven 19:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)