Talk:Scarecrow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Ancient chat removed from article:

This isn't perfect, but it's a stub article just the same. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=67748 is only two measly paragraphs. User:Tbc is negotiating to include http://www.scarecrowland.co.uk/history.html.
Then we can add this to m:Making fun of Britannica. :-)

Ortolan88 17:55 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

disambiguation[edit]

I duplicated the list of alternate uses of the term at Scarecrow (disambiguation), since it became too unwieldy for an article that should be primarily about bird scaring devices. Please remove (from this article) items of which you know that they have little in common with the stuffed fellows except their name. (Baum and Todd are obvious, MacKaye is also about a scarecrow) Femto 16:05, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Last sentence of introduction[edit]

Mayanc sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.182.86.168 (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of the introduction "Thus, it is in the interest of farmers, gardeners, and homeowners to move them along." is unnecessary and is rendered superflous by the rest of the introduction, thus I have removed it. What's more, it reads as uncyclopedic in tone and style. Black-Velvet 05:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scarecrows in fiction[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.182.86.168 (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC) In the section entitled "Scarecrows in fiction," the first entry states: "The scarecrow was commonly used in 19th century English Literature, as shown by its presence in the L. Frank Baum tale The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, as one of the main protagonists. The Scarecrow of Oz was searching for brains from the Great Wizard. In the film The Wizard of Oz The Scarecrow of Oz was portraited by Ray Bolger."[reply]

Excuse me, but the last time I checked, L. Frank Baum was an American author. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was a piece of American fiction published in 1900. It is not, nor has it ever been, an example of 19th century English literature. I'm going to change this. StudierMalMarburg 19:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe whoever typed it got confused? You Americans do speak English after all. 143.53.155.115 (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1900 is the 19th century - the last year of it in fact. Centuries end at the end of their 100th year, not their 99th. The official language of the USA is English. Therefore literature written in English in the USA in 1900 is 19th English literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrchfontRDP (talk • contribs) 10:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested improvements to Scarecrow entry[edit]

The History section might be expanded to include information about the continuing popularity of scarecrows as artistic objects. For example some information on scarecrow festivals could be added, as these seem to be increasingly popular.

There also seems to be quite a lot of information in this article that is not directly relevant to scarecrows but to crows and other bird scarers, which both have their own pages.

I think the Scarecrows in fiction section needs a bit of reworking. The Manual of Style suggests that a chronological order is used for lists of works, and full bibliographical details are included where available, but neither of these conventions seem to have been followed. The list also includes details of scarecrows in film, tv and music. These should be pulled out of this heading. Perhaps the list should also be trimmed to include only notable scarecrow characters, rather than every mention of a scarecrow, as this list has already become longer than the definition and history sections of the entry.

I have already made some minor edits to include a couple of references and remove some of the wikilinks which were not relevant to the context of the entry, as recommended by the Manual of Style. Tattie-bogle 11:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've rearranged (and renamed) the Trivia section so that it is grouped thematically. I didn't try to do it chronologically, but IMHO there aren't enough examples to make that meaningful, and it would lose the thematic dimention. --Northernhenge (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just now done a Google search for "scarecrow festival". There must be enough material there to create a seperate article, if anyone out there is sufficiently interested in the topic. --Northernhenge (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded but the issue seems to have been overlooked? Might try as my first article. Lonesometwin (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone explain how scarecrows actually work?[edit]

Might be a good addition to the article 59.38.32.9 (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scarecrows work as a bird scarer, and there's a link at the end of the article. I think this article is fairly good, discussing the figure, it's history, mythology, cultural impact, and the notation that the humanoid form isn't really functional as a bird scarer, altogether the automated guns listed in the bird scarer article aren't really scarecrows, as the commonly known figure is. The bit about the crop damage crows can do could probably be edited out. If you have crop problems, you'll want a bird scarer, not a figure dressed up like the Ray Bolger character who was Dorthy's first companion. 64.252.182.118 (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't address at all that scarecrows don't actually work. The only thing it says is that currently other deterrents are used, not why this is. Possibilities would include cost, actual efficacy, improved efficacy, aesthetic sensibilities, ecological reasons, and so on and so forth. There should be a link to scientific literature on scarecrow efficacy, if any is available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.87.159 (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC) I. Agree with above, should be improved. --77.249.24.154 (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also came to the article looking for data about efficacy. The prose of the article implied to me that scarecrows are effective or at least historically so in agriculture. If this is not supported by evidence I think the article could use an NPOV pass. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henohenomoheji[edit]

What is the relevance of the link to Henohenomoheji under See also? leevclarke (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's because Japanese kids use it as a scarecrow face. mopo11

History[edit]

Does it - the scarecrow - link to murder and war? The German page has an interesting photograph suggesting something like this in the entry Corvus - Rabe / Krähe, Diskussion - the Talk-Site. The photograph evokes rather strange associations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.126.200 (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scarecrow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is a scarecrow?[edit]

From most definitions, scarecrows are symbolized to look like a human but for real, scarecrow is not a must to figure out a human shape. From my view,a scarecrow is an artificially made material for frightening or causing fear to the surrounding objects. A scarecrow can be inform of electronic magnetic radiations,it can be anything that can actually cause fear to the surrounding objects. Modernagric (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scarecrow&oldid=1195296162"