Talk:Scops owl

message: Anyonw willing to redo the references to conform to WP standards (i.e.  )? 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)
replies: text: That's called Harvard citation. Dysmorodrepanis 23:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'd support that (I set up the request) and I'll go ask for references. Dysmorodrepanis 23:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Megascops

message: 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)
thread_title: Screech owls?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's all understood now, thank you! Jessicapierce 23:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted edits

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: Due to a nomenclatorial dispute, the generic name Scops is not used by either the scops or the screech owls ... nor by any other animal. I shouldn't think the scops and screech owls used any name for themselves, not having the power of speech. And why refer to any other animal? If the sentence is supposed to state that the generic name Scops is not used of either the scops or the screech owls, why are the editors of this article using it? Should the sentence state that Scops is not the generic name of these owls? This would be a much clearer way to state it, if that is what it means. Koro Neil (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy and systematics 

message: A 2018 study found Mascarenotus to be a non-monophyletic lineage within Otus, therefore it should be merged here.Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a review which supports this statement? It's probably best to wait until reviews or well-recognized databases accept this. Klbrain (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge