Talk:Barred owl

Birds Mid‑importance

Barred 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, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Mexico Low‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allosaurusofsteel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daytime active?

Of the North American owls, they are the species most likely to be active during the day, especially when raising their chicks. Is this true? Short-eared Owl, Snowy Owl and Burrowing Owl all hunt readily during the day? Or should it read of the exclusively American owls...? jimfbleak 07:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not endangered

These owls are not endangered in any sense of the word, and yet they remain on the endangered species list for New Jersey. 71.250.249.15 19:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Kolef88[reply]

Eating a fox?

In the paragraph on feeding this article claims a barred owl will kill a fox which seems to be a pretty crazy statement. The reference for the paragraph is The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Does anyone have a copy who can verify this? I find the claim of eating opossums equally dubious unless we are talking about babies. If this is the case it must be made clear. Perhaps the original reference said they eat fox squirrels. This is far more likely. Kirkmona (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. I changed the text to more accurately reflect what these birds actually eat. I added two references for confirmation. BTW the Field Guide of the Audubon Society does not mention foxes or opossums. DGERobertson (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. Thanks to DGERobertson For fixing that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.86.189 (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Wood owl

Wood owl is a disambiguation page. I just updated it, as it did not list all the wood owls listed in this article. I understand that Ciccaba have been reclassified as Strix, which would place all the wood-owls here. So I wonder if it makes sense to have a separately maintained disambiguation page. In addition to the owls listed here with Wood-owl in their name, Strix varia is also said to be called wood owl. If that were noted in the listing here, all the information currently on the disambiguation page would be here, and there would be no need to maintain the disambiguation page. Does this make sense? --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this merge. There are a half-dozen or more species of "wood-owls" (with the hyphen included or not, depending on whose taxonomy you use), and it would be inappropriate to merge the DAB page with this particular North American owl! Merging it with Strix (genus), as suggested in the wood owl article, would be a better solution. MeegsC | Talk 16:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree. It makes more sense, as suggested above, to identify the "wood owls" in the Strix page. DGERobertson (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

decapitation

apparently these owls have been known to rip off the heads of animals that are too big to carry away and just eat the head? http://www.wmtw.com/news/26801031/detail.html if this is more than an isolated incident I'd suggest adding it to eating habits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerikson (talk • contribs) 14:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is too Short

The lead section is not very informative, and I feel that there should be a citation for the alternative common names that are listed. Many of them are names I've never heard of.Allosaurusofsteel (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution and Habitat

The section on distribution and habitat contains a whole paragraph that is taken directly from the source material. It also contains a lot of words such as "evidently" and "apparently". Words such as these should be avoided because it makes it sound as if the author isn't really sure of the information they are providing. And, because the source material is using these words too, I feel it is not a good source. I also think it would help to add an image showing the historical and expanded range of the barred owl.Allosaurusofsteel (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Food and Feeding

In the section on feeding, the last sentence of the first paragraph is not cited. Other than that, it is a well written section.Allosaurusofsteel (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article as a Whole

Overall, this article is easy to read, and citations are given frequently. There are, however, some sentences that need citations added to them and using sentences taken directly from the source should be avoided.Allosaurusofsteel (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean to have an Owl at your house. Is it good or bad luck 2600:100A:B1E9:422B:B572:2CC:D944:3A05 (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barred 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/20170525111608/http://www.cfr.washington.edu/classes.esrm.150/readings/Livezey_2010a.pdf to http://www.cfr.washington.edu/classes.esrm.150/readings/Livezey_2010a.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal Material

I understand the need for brevity, but some of the recent removals seem excessive. The removed material is relevant, and because it is appropriately subdivided into categories, it seems to me it keeps the material organized in a way as not to be overwhelming. More specifically, Uruk, why remove the material on passerine prey species and barred owl subspecies? Crescent77 (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response on my talk page. I do agree that some(or many) of the sections were overly detailed and wordy, and could use formatting into a more encyclopedic format, but I think there was still value for WP in the information contained therein. With the basics section for the introductory reader, I don't think it hurts to have more detailed information (and more references) in more specific subsections for someone who wants to dig a little deeper. When I have more time, I may reformat and reinclude some of the information in question in a more concise form. Also I have to say, I don't understand the need to limit references. Could you elaborate on your reasoning for that? Thanks. Crescent77 (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding excessive number of citations please take a look to Wikipedia recommendation here (Citation Overkill). Regarding an excessive level of detail in article Wikipedia provides some advice in (Too much detail) . Regards --Uruk (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this article is excellent and removing material would be regrettable. I find it adequately well organized and as a non-expert reader found it very easy to skim. I don't see the need to prune it. Mark K. Jensen (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong owl in audio?

I listened to the audio for the owl in the infobox, and I think it's a spotted owl. I say this because the owl had 4 unevenly spaced hoots, unlike a barred owl's 8 hoot-call. Could someone update this? 174.213.213.247 (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]