Talk:Powerful owl

Vandalism
Can someone explain what it means by "and is known to frequent Tong's pad."? Is that vandalism? Throb 06:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a photo of a Powerful Owl, would it be inappropriate to use it to accompany the Wikipedia article? I have no problems with it being used here. Throb 06:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the Tong's pad thing was vandalism and I've just removed it. If you own the copyright on that photo and you're happy to release it under a free license, then it would be a welcome addition to this article. It's best to upload it at commons.wikimedia.org so that it can be used by all Wikimedia projects. Angela. —Preceding comment was added at 16:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Large Ninox Owls as "Boobook"
I have a problem with adopting the name "Boobook" for the three large Ninox owls (Powerful, Rufous and Barking OWL). I am not aware of any field guide or reference work that uses "Boobook" for these species. I have never seen these names used in the scientific literature and I have just finished a masters research thesis on Barking Owl, so I have looked. Nor are they adopted by the Australian list (RAOU/Birds Australia/Birdlife Australia). The major taxonomic work by Christidis and Boles (2008) does not use the name. Even other locations on Wikipedia have not adopted Boobook for these species (e.g. List of birds of Australia). The three species are unlike Boobooks in size (all more than double the weight of the largest boobooks) and they are the only three owl species to show non-reversed sexual dimorphism (the males are about 10% larger than the females). In short, the IOC list seems to have created the boobook names out of nothing more than a common genus. Even then they have not been consistent, with some seven species still being called "Hawk-Owl". I appreciate the value of having an internationally recognised name list but why should they be inventing new names? Given the IOC inclusion of these species as "Boobook" the names need to appear on the page but only once and in that context. I would like to revert the three pages in question (and associated lists) but would like feedback from other contributors first. Ninox8 (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read talk - my bad - before making changes to the name. As you say, no Australian guides use the term "Powerful Bookbok" to describe this bird. I don't know how to change the name of the article but that would be desirable, in my view. Im a teapot (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There's also the question of spelling: "boobook" or "bookbok". Looking at various sources, including OED, I find that "boobook" is the more usual form. In this article, "boobook" should be used, but there could be a redirect from the other spelling. Giles Martin (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Author
And the author for Ninox strenua is (Gould) 1838 and not at all Latham, 1802. latham is first author of Ninox connivens.--212.204.81.5 (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree and I will changeNinox8 (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)