Talk:Tawny owl

message: "The renowned bird photographer Eric Hosking lost an eye to a Tawny Owl he was photographing. He went on to call his autobiography An Eye for a Bird". - Could we move this under a new subheading of Triva - it seems like a trivial fact and has actully nothing to with people themselves but rather what they have done.  Under the people section it should state how they get along with people and not have stories or trivial facts about what the have done in the past.  I am going to do this and put it under the subheading of "Trivia".  Any qeuries go to my disscussion page and express your feelings there. LOTRrules 19:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivial Fact and Subheading

message: The GA review has been archived and can be accessed via Talk:Tawny Owl/GA1. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: I am so pleased this is the featured article of today! Bravo! Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes! 

message: It's nice that we're quoting Wordsworth and Shakespeare and I understand the temptation to jazz up an article with such quotations from the literary heights, but I think this section is totally indiscriminate. These are impliedly about this owl, but they are not and to that extent it's misleading. The quotes are about owls, and would be maybe proper in the article on the species, but I find this improper in an article on a subspecies. What would be your rationale if someone wanted to add to this seciton something from Harry Potter where owls are frequently featured, or some obscure doggerel from this or that. What would be your reason for removing that but keeping this?--141.155.144.171 (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A valid point about references to generic owls over this particular kind of owl... SGGH ping! 03:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As the principle editor, I'd like to say that the above good faith comments are incorrect. Although the examples given do not mention the Tawny Owl by name, they refer to hooting, and the only owl in Britain or Rome which hoots is this species. I'm quite ruthless trimming popular culture sections, but I'm happy with these. I'm not sure why the Tawny is described as a subspecies by the anon isp, there is no doubt that this is a full species Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 10:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy then as that is the case. SGGH ping! 11:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Having looked again at the references for the Welsh stories, read the Mabinogion extract, and checked cy.wikipedia, I don't now think that the last paragraph, added by another editor, can be reliably attributed to this species, so now removed. Thanks for raising the point Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 11:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture section is indiscriminate 

message: Following up on an edit war in the main article, e.g.  Folks, these kinds of minor changes are discouraged because they are somewhat a matter of taste, but especially because they create work for editors and administrators.
I'm a professional editor, let me comment on the two versions. In general, fewer words saying a similar thing are better, because every word read takes a little extra time. Oppositely, multi-syllable words and complex sentence structure take longer to read. So it's somewhat a matter of taste whether 
"commonly found in woodlands" or "which is common in woodlands"
Possibly an advanced reader would prefer the first, while a non-native English speaker would find the second easier.
"night time" vs. "nighttime". It may look a little funny, but "nighttime" is a word in Webster's Third and other dictionaries. "Night time" might be considered non-standard.
"five" vs. "5"
Numbers under ten are commonly spelled out in general material.
"an important" vs. "a important".  The second is wrong.
"Known for it's giant nostrils".  This is an mistake "it's" is a contraction meaning "it is". The sentence doesn't make sense as "Known for it is giant nostrils".
As for "inhaling humans", that's vandalism, which rather prejudices the case against the other edits, which might then be assumed to be "bad faith".
Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war on minor changes

message: Can I just ask why is this at the top of the page - "For the suburb of Upper Hutt, New Zealand, see Upper Hutt."
I have absolutely no idea how or why you would get to a page of the Tawny Owl when looking for the Suburb of Upper Hut - can anyone explain?
125.237.89.115 (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: This article is probably due for FA review.  It has been almost 7 years and the talk page shows that there has been some discord on editing style.  Also, odd that there is no species distribution map.  How is such a critical element lacking? --Gaff (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   Featured article status 

message: The Range map presented here is a complete one???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.236.86.168 (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: see diff, which I took from Commons.--Eostrix (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range map 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tawny owl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080613155238/http://www.owls.org/Species/strix/tawny_owl.htm to http://www.owls.org/Species/strix/tawny_owl.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Pinging , . I've boldly reverted this article to the version of 14 January 2020.
When it was promoted in 2008 the article contained 26kB. Over the next 12 years it increased in size to 30kB but then on 22 January 2020 the article was expanded to 251kB in a single edit, an 8-fold increase in size. This clearly made it a very different article from the one that was promoted in 2008. In my opinion the expanded article no longer met the FA criteria. All FAs can be improved but any significant change should be discussed on the article's Talk page. Problems with the expanded article:
*The expanded article often included too much detail and was not written in summary style.
*The article wasn't improved by including a mention of almost every study ever published on the tawny owl.
*The right-hand column of the table listing the subspecies was very narrow and extremely difficult to read. In my view it is better to list the subspecies in the Taxonomy section and then discuss how they differ in the Description section (following the example of HBW) as in the promoted version.
*Why were citations added to the lead?
*The added references - 400 of them - were not formatted in the style of the original article which used the cite journal/book templates. For example, the added references had journal article titles in italics rather than quotes. Also some books didn't have page numbers, no dois or ISBNs were included ... etc.
- Aa77zz (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Aa77zz Yes, I hadn't really noticed this, but it's clearly not close to the FA version. It's inevitable that bird article have to use some primary sources, but, as you say, not the whole caboodle. I don't know why the material in the last ssp column was put there, I think it's more normal to put all but the briefest descriptions or comments of ssp in a text section. And of course citations in the lead have been deprecated for many years, since it's a summary of referenced text, not new info Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert to 14 Jan 2020 version 

message: Why does cat owl redirect here? "Cat owl" doesn't show up anywhere in this article nhinchey (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea why. The redirect has been there since 2009. I've changed it to Long-eared owl as that article mentions cat owl as an alternative name. I don't know if cat owl is a more general term for more than one species, say for the genus, because of the "ears", but at least now the redirect and target article are consistent. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  cat owl? 

message: Robert E Fuller, who has studied tawny owls and posted several videos on his Youtube channels, including named individuals calling,  claims that both sexes can produce the full range of sounds, including the famous kew-wick call and the typical hooting. Its funny how 'facts' get copied from one source to another without actually verifying the evidence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.193.28.115 (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male and female calls 

message: Islam an it's culture 2803:1500:1201:F98B:E4A1:6128:BD0C:2113 (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam