Talk:Barred owl

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)

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)

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

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)


 * 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)

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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)