American robin is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
American robin 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut 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.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut
I think someone who knows about them should add a section about robins that don't migrate. I live in Milwaukee and we do have year round robins here although most do fly south for the winter? Why don't those fly south?
4.143.233.83 (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)rich[reply]
I asked this of a zookeeper at the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago and she said that birds only migrate because of food. They come North in the Summer because there are so many insects and the babies eat tons of them. When the insects die off in the cold weather they go South. But if the bird can find food all year long there is no need to go south. She said as long as a bird can find enough food, it has no problem with cold weather, because feathers are great insulation and birds can find a lot of small places to keep the cold out. So basically it comes to food. If the Robin can find lots of food it doesn't need to fly South
Bold text==Who builds the nest?==
The article says "As with many migratory birds, the males return to the summer breeding grounds before the females and compete with each other for nesting sites. The females then select mates based on the males' songs and the desirability of the nests they have built."
However, both the dead-tree references I own, and all websites I've checked say some variation on the female doing most of the nest-building.[1]american robins are cool.[2] And the person who added that text hasn't made an edit since April, so it would probably be futile to ask on their Talk page. Niteowlneils 8 July 2005 01:37 (UTC)
Text corrected, and ref given. jimfbleak 8 July 2005 05:51 (UTC)
I've been watching a nest of four eggs for at least 10 days. It's only about four feet off the ground in an abrovita. The parents fly to the nest but don't stay long. Do the adults sleep in the nest, as I assumed, or somewhere else? I thought the mother had to sit on the eggs, as a chicken does. Anyway, I'll keep watching.
2008 - I'm in Michigan with a Robins nest of three eggs just outside my front door about 7ft off the ground tucked in a corner on top of a piece of a closed gutter... one egg was laid on May 9th shorthly after the nest was completed by HER. By May 12th there were three eggs. Both the Male and the Female take turns sitting on the eggs at all diff times of the day, even when it's warm out. Since May 9th every night around 11pm I check on the nest. Starting May 12th evening I have seen either him or her on the nest every night. Whats strange is when I check on them in the evening they do not fly away when I open the door. However, during the day, when I open the door and they are on the nest they immediately fly to the closest tree and begin to badger me verbally for disrupting them. If they aren't sitting on the nest day time when I walk outside, one or both is watching from a tree about 30 feet away and again freak out verbally with agitated chirps while bouncing around the tree. Lastly, if it is only one watching the nest from the tree, it takes only several min for the other one to fly back and assist in the verbal protection of their soon to be young. Kerri cat5869@comcast.net
I've noticed that there's been some editing back and forth about the spelling of "fledging". My understanding was that "fledging" was a verb, used to describe the action of the mother caring for her young birds...and that the word "fledgling" was a noun referring to the young birds...should we change it back to fledgling? or am I mistaken here?
The article presently says:
Bird banders have found that only 25% of young robins survive the first year.
Is this claim literally true, or is the proper claim that only 25% of banded young robins survive through their first year? Certainly it would be possible to splice statistics on younger birds to those banded birds, but was this in fact done? —SlamDiego16:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of 4 February 2008, the article says:
"The gestation period of the female is 40 days."
Could someone knowledgeable about birds comment on gestation?
Looking at the wikipedia article on gestation, there is no mention of gestation
for birds. It is my impression that the term gestation is inappropriate for birds
and that the term incubation applies to birds. In the context of this wikipedia article, does gestation refer to the time from mating until an egg is laid? If so, the article could say "About 40 days passes after mating until an egg is laid." I have not found a reference for this, though. Also, I have read elsewhere that robins lay one egg per day and that the female typically lays 4 eggs, sometimes 5. Three eggs were not mentioned unless an egg breaks, in which case the female often lays another egg. If correct, that seems appropriate to add to the article.
— JonEAhlquist 4 Feb 2008 (I am a meteorologist and am no relation to the Jon E. Ahlquist who is the bird expert who worked with Charles Sibley.)
This is quite a meaty article and shouldn't need too much to get to GA/FA. We should have a discussion on images - in text vs gallery. In general for Featured Content the consensus has been sparing use of images through the text, while the gallery is in essence located on Commons (and hence we're promoting Commons by the link). cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good - images, I mean. I moved some of them out of the text because they were making the section formatting weird. Does anyone have sources for the vocalization section? If we can get at least one in there, that would be good. Also, I think the lead needs to be expanded - I'll start that now. Corvus coronoidestalk01:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found one for the Canadian 2-dollar bill. I'm not sure that it's an excellent source, though. This link was somewhat useful, but all it says is "robins," so I figured we needed a source that was more specific. Corvus coronoidestalk01:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It won't get through GA without taxonomy, methinks, I've started the section and will add subspecies from Clements later, I've also done a first copy edit, but there's more to do Jimfbleak (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've no strong opinion, but it's been separate (sometimes under the heading "Conservation" for threatened species) in several previous GA/FAs. If it can't be extended, maybe merge? Jimfbleak (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lead needs work -no mention of nest or voice, but trivia like "state bird of ..." Also nothing on brood/external/internal parasites Jimfbleak (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the lead a bit. As for the "state bird of... " bit, would it be appropriate to add that to the "In culture" section or no? Speaking of which, can "In culture" be renamed to something a little more sophisticated sounding? I know we used "Cultural depictions of ravens" for the Common Raven. Even something like "Robins in culture" sounds better to me than "In culture." Corvus coronoidestalk23:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MoS doesn't like the article name to be repeated in heading. I think to get to GA now,
"culture" needs some work, but as a Brit I have no sources
"description" looks a bit thin to me, needs more detail
gallery needs to go, images moved into article or lost, commons checked
Okay, well, I fleshed out "description" a bit and removed the gallery. As for "culture," I happen to be an American, but I'm an American student, and I have no sources. I've never heard of the robin having any cultural significance before seeing the Tlingit bit in this article. As a student, I don't think any of the sources I can get my hands on will be of much use and a quick search at my local library gets me children's books and field guides. Does anyone know of any specific references to robins in culture that just need a reference? I might be able to come up with that online. Corvus coronoidestalk15:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did some minor copy editing to the article to help out. If anyone has any extra tasks in helping with this article, let me know and I'll try to lend a hand. --ZeWrestlerTalk17:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for that. Does any one know if AmRob has any particularly close relatives in the genus. Despite its size, Clement treats it as fairly homogenous, really only mentioning the Blackbird/Island Thrush link (other than discussing species-level splits0? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs) 13:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) I haven't read the article yet, but I'd suggest changing the taxobox picture- it looks faded to me. I'd suggest . Also, there is a picture of a baby robin on commons that may be worked in. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this sentence, referring to T. m. nigrideus: "Some females can be as dark above as males of other subspecies." Axl (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another odd sentence, referring to T. m. achrusterus: "It is smaller than the nominate subspecies and has a black forehead and crown finely tipped pale gray." Okay, it has a black forehead, but what does the latter half of the sentence mean? Axl (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding T. m. confinis: "the AOU regard it as only a subspecies, albeit in a different group to the other races". What is the "AOU"? Axl (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jimfbleak. I have made several (mostly copyediting) changes. The article is comprehensive, reads well, and is nicely referenced and illustrated. I am delighted to promote it to "Good Article" status. Axl (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a picture of a Juvenile American Robin that more clearly shows the spotted undersides...it has a similar clarity. Would anyone object to me replacing the current image? Cazort (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very surprised no mention is made in this article of where the name 'robin' came from. English settlers had a long tradition of naming the new, unfamiliar flora and fauna they came across in America after similar (and sometimes not-so-similar) looking birds, animals and plants they knew back home. The American robin was named after the European one, the only similarity being the red breast. (Ref Robert McCrum, William Cran and Robert MacNeil 1992 The Story of English 123 Faber and Faber ISBN0 571 16443 9)
The list of 'adopted' American common names is huge and worthy of a Wikipedia aticle, I think - eg American cowslips (Caltha palustris, the kingcup or Marsh marigold in Britain) is nothing like the 'original' cowslip, Primula veris, apart from yellow-coloured flowers. Any takers? 86.133.212.100 (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the bit about it being named after the European Robin. If you have relevant, sourced material to add to a Wikipedia article, don't just sit there being surprised that it's not already in the article -- get in there and do it! :-) Dricherby (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions a robin in the 1964 film Mary Poppins and suggests that it is some sort of oddity, as American robins are rare vagrants to Western
Europe. This may need to be omitted; did the author of that portion realize there are European robins, the namesake of the North American bird? I have not
checked to see which bird is portrayed in the movie. However, English authors/characters/actors talking about robins in London is not out of the ordinary. There
are robins in England, but they are a different species. This referral to a film in an article about a bird (especially in a non-cultural section of the article)
might be inappropriate or outright moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.151.231 (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The internet source given for this statement says:
The robin that lands on Mary's finger in the "Spoonful of Sugar" sequence is an American, not British, robin.
and the source describes this as a geographic error in the film. As for your point about the possible inappropriateness of a cultural reference in a non-cultural section of the article, you may have a point. Duoduoduo (talk)
as the fall started i have been watching the American Robin in my garden daily it did hapen last year to. As i was reviewing the site about robins in Wikipedia i notice that the american robin lives only in North america I thought i need an explanation is this bird a different one ??
I also noticed that this bird appears eralier than the European Robin but stays for shorter period
It breeds only rarely in the southern United States and there prefers large shade trees on lawns.[21]
But I know from personal experience that it breeds every spring in North Carolina (for example, right now). Can someone check whether the source really claims this? If you look at the color-coded map at the start of this article, it shows virtually the entire South as "year-round". Duoduoduo (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll dig out the book a bit later today (just need to move some boxes/furniture to get at it), but is worth remembering wikipedia has to go off published sources not personal experience. We can check some others too and update. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It still seems dubious -- actually flat-out wrong -- to me. The Deep South is usually considered to be South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. If you look at the map at the top of this article, virtually all of the Deep South is in the year-round zone. How can the birds be in the Deep South year round without breeding there? If there is a published source that is obviously wrong, then the statement and its source should not be included. Duoduoduo (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we'll find some other sources then. I haven't been to that part of the world (apart from Miami and New Orleans many moons ago) so will defer to those closer.....Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, our map is wrong. It's been made using someone's personal website as a source, which should have been a no-no! Here's a better map, produced by Cornell Lab of Ornithology which bases its maps on records from a variety of sources. Birds of North America says "only scattered breeding in deserts of se. California (Small 1994), s. Nevada, nw. and se. Arizona, s. New Mexico, w.-central and se. Texas, s.-central Louisiana, s. Mississippi, s. Alabama, and the panhandle and extreme n. peninsula of Florida, with scattered breeding in Florida south to Marion and Hillsborough Cos. (Hubbard 1978, Hamel 1992, Robertson and Woolfenden 1992, Small 1994, Texas Breeding Bird Atlas [BBA] unpubl.). Absent from lower coastal plains in Texas and Louisiana (Hamel 1992, Texas BBA)." Since it's missing as a breeder (except in "scattered" circumstances) in much of southern Texas, southern Louisiana, southern Mississippi, southern Alabama and peninsular Florida, that would suggest it is indeed not a breeder in at least parts of the "Deep South". MeegsC | Talk01:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, it's possible that the source Cas is using is older. Prior to the 1930s, this species was pretty rare as a breeder outside SC's Piedmont, with the southern edge of its breeding range ending in northern Mississippi, northern Alabama, northern Georgia, and northern South Carolina. It extended into the coastal plains after that. It didn't expand into most of Texas until the 1950s. Again, this is all from BNA. MeegsC | Talk01:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This data from eBird: [7], range map restricted to July, shows that American Robin is quite abundant in many parts of the deep south: Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. It is not "rare" -- rare in bird breeding means that there are usually only a few documented cases of breeding in each season, in the region in question. I think on the basis of this map it would be accurate to say it is an "uncommon breeder" in the southern parts of the deep south states, but it seems quite abundant as a breeder in central Georgia, Northern Louisiana, and east Texas. It also seems more common along both Atlantic and gulf coasts. On the basis of this, I'm going to remove the claim. Cazort (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently states "A new nest is built for each brood". I know personally this is incorrect because there is a nest outside the window at my office and a pair of robins re-use it year after year. This has been known of at least since 1898 according to this PDF scan and it is also mentioned here.
While robins may indeed change nesting sites I know that they have no qualms against using old nests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.176.247.51 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, forgive me if I'm doing this incorrectly, but I would like to discuss the use of the secondary name "North American Robin", which I believe to be misleading. It is cited to an external link, but the link is to an obscure website which you cannot access unless you are a member. I can find no other source, particularly one of unequivocal authority, giving the alternative name "North American Robin". The Clements Checklist of Birds of the World, 6th Edition is the checklist endorsed by the American Birding Association and has Turdus migratorius listed under "American Robin".
I am hoping the words "...or North American Robin" will be removed from the first sentence.
Someone moved the state bird sentence from the "In culture" section to its own section. I'm moving it back, but please chime in with an opinion on whether a separate section is warranted. --Agyle (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you are right. This is a Good Article, and fragmenting the text into minisections reduces the prose quality. The state bird facts are logically part of the culture section, and can't realistically be expanded into a longer stand-alone section Jimfbleak - talk to me?07:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With only one sentence in that section, it should not be separated. If the state bird information is significantly expanded in the future, a separate section might be justified. Axl¤[Talk]09:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do a lot of WP editing, but on this subject I'm a mere reader. I came here to learn about the male-female appearance difference. I found four images identified as male and zero female. Any particular reason? There's at least one decent photo of a female on Commons. If it's considered that there are already too many images, a female could replace one of the males. Leaving the decision up to those who know something about the subject. ―Mandruss☎22:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a first-time reader of this article, with an interest in learning about the subject, to understand the new nest on my front porch, I am impressed with this article -- it talks about aspects of interest relevant to nesting, with an appropriate level of detail. Good job, everyone! Not sure how it could be improved -- maybe a picture of a bird sitting on a nest? Not so easy for an amateur to ID, because the colored breast is hidden.-71.174.176.65 (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ideas for improving article
little graph of day-by-day weight gain from hatching to fully fledged -- just two weeks?! -- and/or other factoids that best illustrate how quickly this development/growth happens
graph of estimated total bird count over the last century or more and projected for next century, and a few maps of shifting distribution over time, with comments on main factors/causes
recorded sound samples and meanings (only one sound file in article now, tho Ext Links seem good)
statistics on main causes of death -- does such data exist?
they seem comfortable being close to humans -- what are the tradeoffs for them from this tolerance or preference, risks vs. benefits?
links to videos (one good Ext Link now) -- timelapse of nesting cycle?
I have just modified 9 external links on American robin. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.
Article currently states that "They will flock to fermented Pyracantha berries, and after eating sufficient quantities will exhibit intoxicated behavior such as falling over while walking." I can't find any credible sources on this and most claims of animals getting "drunk" are dubious at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleistocen3 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on American robin. 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:
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.
The specificity is awkwardly worded and cumbersome and, in my opinion, not necessary. I think the info would be much more easily digested if it were streamlined into something more like...
"They may be taken by nearly every variety of North American bird of prey, from the smallest representatives such as sharp shinned hawks, kestrels, and pygmy owls, to the largest, like golden eagles, gyrfalcons, and snowy owls."
All the same info with none of the awkward qualifiers like "one of the two largest" and "most every north american falcon" and "almost all owl species." The word "nearly" in the first phrase already indicates that there are exceptions, so there's no need to reiterate it several more times. The other thing that could trim it down a bit would be to just say "birds of prey" instead of specifying the 3 orders. If I'm right (which, maybe I'm not!), the only order excluded in the list of examples are the new world vultures. So, it'd be less wordy to refer to birds of prey as a whole, and perhaps squeeze in a parenthetical excusing the vultures.
Lastly, is there much of a purpose in specifying the largest and smallest of these predators? It seems like a bit of an awkward tidbit of, let's say, Bonus Facts, that don't really provide pertinent information about robins, which are the actual subject of the article. I think simply stating that they're preyed on by a wide variety of birds of prey gets the point across. 71.163.174.152 (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At first glance, the article seems to be outdated. The conservation status, especially the culture section, must also be expanded and the refbomb should be removed. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 'In culture' section seems quite detailed enough for a species article, with a good diversity of coverage. If there is more it should go in a subsidiary article with a 'main' link here, but that is not a matter for GA or GAR.
The map is poor resolution, and inaccurate particularly in respect of the southern edge of the breeding range; it needs re-doing (I might be able to do so later).
The vernacular names given for the subspecies ("eastern robin", "Newfoundland robin", etc.) are unverified; they are not used in the reference cited for the subspecies (Clement & Hathway, Thrushes), and should probably be deleted, unless other references can be found (which I doubt; weakly defined subspecies like these rarely get vernacular names).
There is far too much repetition of the page name, and even worse, in the possessive case "The American robin's xxxx", which looks awful. All of the latter, and most of the former, should go.
I've updated the tally of UK records to the latest available; I think this paragraph could be trimmed though, individual vagrants and their outcomes are too trivial to include here (and I say this even though I saw one of them myself!).
The 'Threats' section includes some very poor sentence structure and weird colloquial (unencyclopedic) phraseology - this has already been mentioned on the talk page 2 years ago, but not acted on.
I'm actually impressed by Chiswick's work here in WP (I hope someone tackles Komodo Dragon). I still don't like the structure of the lead a little bit, but regardless of that; the article is looking good. Keep. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Done I've written a much-needed stub for covert (feather) and linked to that. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
