Jump to content

Talk:Elk/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Cervidae

Not all of these animals are Red Deer. As they are no longer classifed as subspecies, there is no reason to refer to Elk as Red Deer any more than there would be to call Sambar or Hog Deer red deer.--Counsel 20:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You are partially correct, yes, there are three species of deer under the Genus Cervus and Subgenus Cervus: The European Red Deer, Central Asian Red Deer, and North American Elk (Wapiti). However, they are still closely related to each other being under the same Subgenus of Cervus and please be mindful that they at one time were classified under Cervus elaphus. The Sambar is under the Genus Cervus, but under the Subgenus Rusa and is distantly related. The Hog Deer is under a different Genus Axis and Subgenus Hyelaphus making this animal distantly related to the Axis Deer/Chital.--User:dlc_73 17:50, 15 December 2006

I agree, however the fact that there are some Red Deer udner cervus does not make them all red deer.--Counsel 20:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory statement, clarification needed

The first sentence under "Protection from Predators" appears to contradict itself. Increased gregariousness would imply the elk was more, not less likely to form groups.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.131.113 (talk • contribs)

Should be taken care of now.--MONGO 20:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be clarified on the top of the page that "elk" is also an European moose. When you search "elk" on Google, this page comes up before the actual European elk. This might be confusing for someone who is actually trying to find out what is the difference between an elk and a moose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.74.11.24 (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection from predators

"cooperatively work together" is redundant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.154.150.2 (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Map of the elk's range

This is a good article, but it could use a map showing the species' range. (The Moose article, for instance, has a range map at the bottom of the infobox.) Funnyhat 05:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with above; also - the Distribution section needs a summary of range in beginning para. I can't get my head around this at hte moment...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 22:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Range map provided is quite incorrect as far as Western Canada is concerned. Large areas of northern and central Saskatchewan have elk including Prince Albert National Park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.240.109 (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

More to-do stuff

I have run out of time (possibly) - needs some figures on farming (how many states etc.) and hunting and antlers to put into last bit. This needs expanding. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay.....

A couple of points since some of the edits I did today have been reverted, so I thought I'd raise them here for discussion:

  • The renaming has become part of the common vocabulary of North Americans. - last sentence first para in lead, I think is redundant. Anyone else have strong feelings on it? It is self explanatory that it is common as it is the common name of the animal.
  • The lead should be a summary of the article. I put in a few lines on farming and food which have been removed. How do others feel?
  • The last 2 sections, which I had renamed Elks and humans and reorganized have been reverted to their former versions. We now have a discussion on Elk hunting under Elk products which doesn't really fit somehow....
  • the first image outside the taxobox is a different width and looks awkward under it. I figured left-justifying it wasa better way to go and more aesthetically pleasing.

Thoughts? cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem this article faces is referencing at this point. Numerous paragraphs have no refs and there also needs to be a greater expasnion of a number of key points. I haven't figured out what those points are yet. I think the folklore section can be incorporated somewhere else, not sure where yet. I don't think "Elk and humans" was as useful as "Elk products", but I would still prefer "Products from elk". All images should be set with no size constraints, simply removing the px setting throughout. I usually redo the intro last after getting the main article into shape...that way, it's easier to write an interesting and more importantly, accurate summary, and is easier to write the summary around the article than vice versa. But all this is water under the bridge since we need to get more refs before this will be a featured article.--MONGO 13:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I agree it needs more refs. I'm in Australia so there isn't much on elks here apart from what we can all find online. Do you want to keep all the images on the RHS though? Hunting for sport still doesn't fit nicely under Products from elk unless we talk about the stuffed deer-heads you stick above the fireplace I guess....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
One problem solved - Cultural references is used on Jaguar and Emu, two other animal FAs. According to MOS, none of the headings should have 'Elk' in them if possible. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I was just looking back and I see it was I who inadvertently reverted your edits, Cas Liber. What happened was, I was working in a sandbox and copied and pasted my whole-scale editing changes over your edits. I see now that that was an error on my part and I ended up stomping on your edits against my own volition. I've learned not to assume that the page wasn't edited since I last took the snapshot. I suppose it was very late at night and I wasn't thinking clearly but I most definitely shall seek to never make a similar mistake. Again, I apologise without reservation for stomping on your edits. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 12:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
That's cool. Thanks for clearing that up. OK, now where was I.... ;) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 12:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, this is what i had added to intro (bit on farming/hunting) - question is, is this the best way to split info into 2-3 paras? Feel free to have a playcheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 12:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Recommendations for improvement (minimal requirements for FA)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 21Cl, use 21 Cl, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 21 Cl.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • are considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: flavor (A) (British: flavour), behavior (A) (British: behaviour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), defence (B) (American: defense), ization (A) (British: isation), cosy (B) (American: cozy), grey (B) (American: gray).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Trimmed lead, not much more trimming is possible unless we then run into single sentence dead ends. The lead does detail the major sections of the article. I do believe the article uses only American English spelling, but will double check. Footnotes all are immediately after punctuation and all numbers that are part of measurements have non-breaking page stops between the number and the measurement. The image in the infobox is free use, I uploaded at as such...so are all the other images.--MONGO 04:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of User:Fluri's edits

A user put some good work into making this an excellent article and his/her edits were reverted. I strongly disagree with this reversion--there was careful work done in those edits. I would like the article reverted back to that editor's last version and work be done from there, or if someone would point out on this page precisely what was wrong with those edits, maybe I could understand it better. I think the reversion was a mistake. Also the continual reference to "elk" with a capital letter makes for awkward reading--it's like talking about Dog all the time in an article with a capital "d". It just makes the article hard to read. KP Botany 21:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions for the introduction, but without the brutal looking capitalized Elk.

The Elk, or Wapiti (Cervus canadensis), is the second largest species of deer in the world, after the Moose (Alces alces), which is also called Elk in Europe. Elk are one of the largest mammals in North America and eastern Asia. Male Elk have large antlers which are shed each year. Until recently, the Elk and the Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) were considered to be the same species, however DNA research has indicated that they are different.

Although native to North America and eastern Asia, they have adapted well to countries where they have been introduced, including New Zealand and Argentina. In some places where Elk have been introduced, they pose a threat to endemic species and ecosystems, and they are considered to be an invasive species.

Male Elk engage in ritualized behaviors during the rut, including posturing, antler wrestling and, especially, "bugling", a loud series of screams designed to help attract females and to establish dominance over other males. The bugle call is one of the most distinctive calls in nature.

Elk are susceptible to a number of diseases, some of which have posed a risk to domesticated livestock or humans. Efforts to eliminate infectious diseases from elk populations, largely through vaccination, have had mixed success.

Some cultures revere Elk as a spiritual force and, in some Asian cultures, antlers and velvet are used in traditional medicines. Elk are hunted as a game species; the meat is leaner and higher in protein than beef or chicken.

KP Botany 22:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitals

I see we are dispensing with the use of capitals here. Now, aesthetically I actually much prefer that, so no problem there. But I have a feeling there is a project preference for capitals for the names of species. Perhaps someone who knows more about these things could check and advise? --John 06:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is discussion regarding this at the FAC page.--MONGO 14:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"confusingly"

Please don't use the pejorative "confusingly" and "confusing" about the name without a specific reference. I reviewed some of these statements when I first came to Wikipedia, and it turns out the early settlers were seldom as confused about the names they chose as we currently make them out to be without specific references. The article is simply excellent. I know there is disagreement about the use of capitalization, but I find the article much easier on the eyes without it--and the cougar article would be improved, imo, with this change. This is really a well-written article, good job to everyone for finding a way to work together to make it such an excellent and useful read. KP Botany 21:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The Recent Edits

The recent edits didn't change any content. They merely replaced the existing version with simpler sentences. You had far too much crammed into one sentence. It took me a while to work out the meaning. Ivan West (217.43.69.32 07:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

Mongo, the edits were made because you were trying to put too many points into one sentence. The term 'Elk' has got different meanings in Europe and the USA. This article is about the 'Elk' in the North American sense and as such this fact needs to be clarified at the very beginning. Hence I have begun by pointing this fact out.
I think that you will find that the new version is easier to follow. We have a situation in which the animal that is called the 'Elk' in Europe is called the 'Moose' in North America, and with the added complexity that the term 'Elk' in North America is used for what would essentially be a Red Deer in Europe.
I think you should at least discuss these corrections before you revert again. Ivan West (217.43.69.32 14:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC))
The version that was standing passed Featured Article review, Peer Review and is written more specifically. The way you are writing it breaks down the paragraphs into sentences and is not in keep with WP:MOS...featured articles should have 3 to 5 paragraghs in the lead, not seven or eight sentences...that is a Featured Article standard.--MONGO 15:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mongo, The discussion page was specifically inviting edits and I followed that request by making the introduction more coherent. The original way that it was written was not very clear. It was attempting to put too many facts into one sentence.

The word 'Elk' has got two different meainings. You need to emphasize from the start that you are dealing with the North American meaning. The fact that 'Elk' has a different meaning in Europe needs to be metioned in a separate sentence. I know these things as I am a qualified English teacher and I have been reading Encyclopaedia Britannica and Encyclopaedia Americana for many years.

The way that the article was written prior to my edits was totally unsatisfactory. It was what we would describe as incoherent. I am very surprised to learn that the article has received an award. Ivan West (217.43.69.32 16:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

There may be a way to make it more readable but breaking it down the paragraphs into many sentences is not the way to do it. I'll try and see what we can do to improve the flow.--MONGO 19:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mongo, The best way to go about it is to use the latin species name in the first sentence so as to clearly and unambiguously identify the animal in question. In this same sentence it can be explained that this species is referred to as an Elk in North America. (eg. In North America, the second largest species in the deer family 'Cervus canadensis' is known as the elk.)

In a follow up sentence it can then be pointed out that confusion often arises with the name elk because of the fact that in Europe this name is applied to the largest species of deer, which in North America is known as the moose.

And finally it can be mentioned that the north American elk corresponds in large degree to the European Red Deer.

That would be a basic framework to operate on. If necessary you can keep it all as one paragraph.

The other paragraph on etymology needs to be tidied up because the use of the word moose in that section is irrelevant and confusing. Ivan West (217.43.69.32 23:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

Lets make sure the intro sentence is still the intro sentence and we'll see how we can make the jumble flow better. I'd rather get descriptive about the different naming issues after we first introduce the animal itself.--MONGO 05:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I have found from experience that subtely confusing naming issues such as this need to be split up into stage by stage sentences. But I absolutely agree with you that all the original content should remain, albeit in a re-worded format. Ivan West (217.43.69.32 09:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

Mongo, The new introduction is excellent. However, the naming and etymology section still needs to be tidied up. The problem there is that the etymology of the word elk is based in Europe where the name Elk is applied to what the North Americans call a moose.

Therefore in explaining the etymology, you should not mention the word moose until the very end of that section. Explain the etymology of the word elk first. Then afterwards, point out that for the Europeans the name elk actually applies to what the North Americans call a moose, and not to what the North Americans call an elk. Ivan West (217.43.69.32 19:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

Have at it...I'll work with you as I have time...we just need to not get too detailed in the intro and not break up the paragrapghs into too many sentences. If you think it needs further elaboration, then add that to the Naming and etymology...intros need only summarize the body of the article.--MONGO 03:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Subspecies

According to this paper

Ludt, Christian J. "Mitochondrial DNA phylogeography of red deer (Cervus elaphus)" (pdf). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31 (2004) 1064–1083. Elsevier. Retrieved 2007-08-21. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

only three subspecies of C. canadiensis are distinguishable (canadiensis, kansuensis and xanthopygus). Should we change the article in this way?--Altaileopard 19:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In this edit, the following content was deleted. I think there is quite interresting and in my view reliable info, which is worth to be taken in wikipedia (Probably in a better form): So I pasted it to the talk-page:

The Shou occupies high mountain grassland and brushland habitat in Northern Bhutan and adjacent areas in Southern Tibet, and is similar in ecology to the Thorold's Deer. MacNeill's Deer and Gansu deer occupy subalpine areas with willow trees and rhododendron thickets in mountainous areas of Eastern Tibet and the adjacent Chinese Provinces of Sichuan, Qinghai, and Gansu. Males have small rump patches and short neck manes. In the case of MacNeill's Deer, females also have short neck manes. Many older MacNeill's Deer stags (but not all) do have antlers of the 6 prong plan (6 tines on each antler) reminiscent of Wapitis, which is probably why MacNeill's Deer was considered a subspecies of Wapiti even before genetic research. The Shou and MacNeill's Deer that live in higher altitudes above the forested areas do not migrate between higher and lower elevations, but probably occupy different areas of the high country depending on the time of year.--Altaileopard 12:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
So long as it is referenced.--MONGO 18:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Classification

I understand that this article is not the be-all and end-all of elkdom, but I really don't understand the terminology applied to these animals. The scientific name translates as "North American deer", so why the heck are they called elk? Elk is "Alces alces", the scientific name simply being a Latinization of the common Germanic "elk". Is this encyclopedia specifically American, or is it for everyone? If it's for everyone, then shouldn't the scientific classifications be honored as authoritative, rather than "common" names that have become hopelessly garbled through misapplication? And if the scientific classifications are honored, then by definition, Alces alces is elk, and Cervus canadensis is North American deer. Simple. 24.116.151.23 18:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Aelswyth

I agree with you, and about a year ago I fought this battle on behalf of the real elk! See discussion at the Red Deer talk page. For a while they (the Great American All-Conquering Rulers of Wikipedia) allowed the Elk page to be a disambiguation page pointing to (among other things) Alces alces and Cervus canadensis. Someone then, a few months ago, without further discussion, appears to have decided that the "primary meaning" of elk was Cervus canadensis, and Elk became Elk (disambiguation). I have no problem with the article about the elk being called Moose, because that is clearly the primary meaning of "moose", and I do agree that "elk" has multiple meanings. So I would not argue that the Alces alces article should be called Elk, but I do think it's a pity that "Elk" has been treated as if its (subsidiary) American meaning was the primary meaning. Trouble is, there doesn't seem to be a clear unambiguous vernacular name for the species Cervus canadensis, and therefore it's difficult to find a good name for the article. So we are left with the unsatisfactory annexation of "elk" by the Americans. Unless your suggestion of "North American deer" meets with approval. Does it? I rather fear not... Anyone? GNUSMAS : TALK 09:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
"the Great American All-Conquering Rulers of Wikipedia"...what? No, North American deer does not meet "approval"....no one in North American calls this animal the North American deer, so that obviously is not the correct name for this article.--MONGO 17:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Surely Cervus canadensis should be the Canadian deer and not the North American deer, no? :-) — Dave (Talk | contribs) 00:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, canadensis is as you suggest. Perhaps if we cannot make everyone happy, we can annoy them all equally. Someone should add "the Great American All-Conquering Rulers of Wikipedia" to WP:CABAL. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed so. Unfortunately, as we all know, the GAACRoW would never agree to anything that contains, as its first term, the word "Canadian"; that would be anathema to the G-doubleA-Crow, for sure. Or is that the Gaa-Crow? I've never heard the hyper-secretive term spoken so I'm unsure as to how the acronym might be pronounced. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 05:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(←) well, I'm glad to see I've stirred it up a bit, anyway! There were two serious points in what I said: (1) it does sometimes look from Europe as if our concerns on this side of the water are ignored, and it is as well for people on the western side of the Atlantic (or indeed the eastern side of the Pacific) to remember this; (2) there is actually a bit of a problem with elk and moose which needs to be handled carefully and sensitively, and which has not always received such treatment (it's a bit of a red rag to an elk when I see, for example, that someone has attached a "fact" tag to the statement that Alces alces is called elk in Europe, as happened a few weeks ago!). I am happy to concede that the animal that I know as an elk is best covered in an article called moose - not because that's what it's called but because this is the primary meaning of "moose", and anyone looking for "moose" will expect to arrive at this point. The other question is not, actually, "What is the correct vernacular name of C. canadensis", but "What does a WP user typing the word elk expect to find?" And across large parts of the world, where people whose first language is not English are using the Eng-lang WP, they are likely to expect to reach an article about Alces alces. And because the two animals are somewhat similar there is a danger of confusion, and of someone (whose first language may not be English, remember) getting the wrong end of the stick. If you are looking for an article about a fish and you find yourself looking at something about an aeroplane (sorry, airplane), you know you've taken a wrong turning. If you're looking for an elk and you find an article about, well, a large deer that "they" tell you is an elk, you might be misled. Having said that, there is clearly a difficulty about what to call the article about the Great All-Conquering American Canadian Deer. And if it's only clear and unambiguous vernacular name is elk, so be it. But please remember that WP user in Kazakhstan or Tibet who is fumbling with the English language... And ensure that the clear cross-references and the explanation that usages differ elsewhere in the world remain in a prominent position at the head of both moose and elk. It's good and clear at the moment. Let's keep it that way. GNUSMAS : TALK 07:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No doubt there is confusion on this matter, and that has surfaced numerous times during the effort to bring the article to a featured level. There was never any overt effort to minimize European or other nationalities naming conventions in the application of the current title...the naming confusion stems from early explorers who, when seeing the much larger "Elk" (Red Deer) in North America, mistakenly confused it with a Moose (Elk)...the name stcuk, and for something close to 500 million people, that is what the animal is now called, an Elk. This animal doesn't exist in Europe, however (aside from on game farms or in zoos, perhaps)...there, the most similar animal is the Red Deer...they have recently been identified as completely different species...at least, the DNA evidence indicates they are not the same species. To add further confusion, the animal is also known as a Wapiti, but that name is not commonly used in North America. I have no idea what they call this species in Austrailia or New Zealand, but it has been imported there, at first on game farms, and some have gotten loose, multiplied and are feral, especially in New Zealand. This is also the case in Argentina and maybe even Chile...what they call it there, translated from Spanish, I have no clue. So we went with the common name for THIS animal...which, as I stated, exists naturally only in North America and northeastern Asia.--MONGO 08:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I apologize, if appropriate, for appearing to make light of your concern. I participated in the discussion that led to the current article title, although my preference (Cervus canadensis) did not prevail. That is still my preference and I think it has support at WP:TOL#Article_titles. I do not identify with the Cabal because I object to Elk and support the use of binomial names for species whenever common names are troublesome for any reason. But, I suppose that I would object more to any common name other than Elk. I concur wholeheartedly with ensuring "that the clear cross-references and the explanation that usages differ elsewhere in the world remain in a prominent position at the head of both moose and elk". Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Just my two cents, I agree with the notion of renaming this article to "Wapiti", as that is the aboriginal name most commonly used today. The title "Elk" should be a disambiguation page. My understanding (unverified) is that the Wapiti was called the Elk because the first Europeans to encounter one had heard secondhand reports of Alces Alces and mistook the animal. When they later encountered Alces Alces, they named it "Moose" based on an Algonquian word. --Dunkelza (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Elk Ivory

I do not see a reference to the elk having ivory cannine teeth. Being that this is the only North American animal with ivory and the only antlered animal with canine teeth, I would think there should be some mention of this. Bugguyak (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting...that wasn't documented in the literature I read, but it is apparently true. The back teeth on mature elk are apparently ivory and are the residual remains of what were once tusks, but over the eons of evolution have been greatly reduced. All I could find were links to jewelry and other things of a sale nature. If you know of a book or better source to mention this, then let me know so we can add a reference.--MONGO 18:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm...You're right. I conducted a brief internet search and I too found that there does not seem to be any scholarly literature about this. Maybe someone else can help? Bugguyak (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a small reference to this topic of Elk Ivory under cultural - with sources. (AVermillion)

Range

I believe the range map is incorrect, or more likely out of date. See this map. Both maps appear to be missing the fact that there are some Elk in Alaska. There are also Elk in Michigan and Oklahoma, seen them myself. The map appears to be way off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.151.155.123 (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Article title

It is not reasonable for this article to get ownership of the name Elk. When a name has multiple references, one of the articles should get the stand-alone name only when it is significantly better known. This article should have the Latin name or North America in brackets, and a matching bracketing should redirect to Moose (which it may already do; I haven't yet checked the disambiguation page). Alternatively, both Elk titles could redirect, with this article being called Wapiti.

It is not that it is now unclear (the wording at the top of the article is fine); it's just that it's usage is biased. Salopian (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are welcome, and I'm sure you bring a fresh perspective to the discussions that led to the present title. They are located at Talk:Red_Deer#Name_Selection, I think. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Elk OR Red Deer in New Zealand?

The DNA analysis established that Elk and European Red Deer are distinct species. Both the Red Deer and Elk pages claim they are present in New Zealand, but logically it is more likely that one or the other was introduced. Could anyone shed any light on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.195.117 (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Page move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus for the move. Parsecboy (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


I noticed this page was moved without discussion. I have restored the page. Please instead discuss and use Wikipedia:Requested moves. If consensus is reached, then a page move can be done. --Aude (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't exactly without discussion! I am the one who moved it. This was after reading the long discussion of the subject which went on two years ago (see section above called "Article title", which contains the link to the discussion Talk:Red_Deer#Name_Selection). The result of that discussion was the decision to make an article on Cervus canadensis entitled "Elk (Cervus canadensis)". As I understand it, that used to be the title of this article, but somebody later changed the name to just "Elk". Basically the reason why "Elk" is not good is that the word has referred to Alces alces for centuries (or millennia if you count versions of the word in Old English, Proto-Germanic, Proto-Indoeuropean--even the scientific name Alces is basically the same Indoeuropean word). It is still used for Alces alces here in Europe. So it's not fair to have the article "Elk" refer only to the "American Elk". "Elk" should be a disambiguation page! I realize that there are many links to "Elk" in other articles, meaning Cervus canadensis, but those articles should be changed to link to "American Elk" or "Wapiti" (written [[American Elk|Wapiti]] because Wapiti is a disambiguation page) or "Elk (Cervus canadensis)".

I do not really have the time to argue about this, but I do want to present my case once.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

  • A disambiguation page at elk is one possible solution; it may not be necessary since there are two claimants, each linking to the other.
  • This is a characteristic difference between British and North American English, and we do not prefer either; we stick with what we have. In both N. American dialects, the principal meaning of elk is the North American animal; in British English, it remains animal North Americans call moose.
  • What we do about such situations generally is to leave them alone. The history of elk in Indo-European is irrelevant; we are not writing for the proto-Indo-Europeans. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names says, "If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed." Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name is unhelpful because "Elk" usage varies. I found no support in policies or guidelines for "Elk (Cervus canadensis)". Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna) says, "Don't use common names when it isn't clear what the name refers to." That is the case here. Consequently, the title should either remain Elk (Controversial_names) or be moved to Cervus canadensis per Naming_conventions (fauna). I think it should stay at Elk. According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names, "The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles." Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no such thing, either in regular naming or scientifically as the "American Elk"...if one reads the article, it is pretty clear that Elk are found in both North America and eastern Asia. Wapiti is not the common name of this animal. Though of course many English speaking europeans call what is referred to as the Moose in N. America an Elk and that is derived from German Eich, etc....that matters not overall since what N. Americans call an Elk doesn't even live naturally in Europe...Red Deer do, but Elk don't, least not by N. American naming standards. The article tries to explain the history of the misnaming by early N. American settlers since the "Red Deer" they encountered were far larger than those found in Europe...they thought it looked like what is referred to in Europe as an Elk, which is now called a Moose in N. America. Regardless, the more recnt DNA evidence is pretty clear...European Red Deer and N. American Elk are different species anyway. They can hybridize, but they probably wouldn't do so in the wild if they had options that kept them mating with their own "kind"....that they are behaviorally and geographically isolated, wild mating is a mute point anyway. Though English is widely spoken in Europe, there is no reason N. Americans and eastern Asians need to adjust this naming issue to cater to the whims of second language English speakers. Though consensus rules on Wikipedia, I think I speak pretty accurately for at least half a billion people in this matter. Whether it is correct or not, the animal referred to as an Elk in N. America and eastern Asia is the most commonly applied name to the most common species of ungulate belonging to the Cervus Genus.--MONGO 01:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Key missing information

Other than a blurb in the intro, I'm not seeing any cited detail on their diet. Steven Walling (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a small amount of info about their diets..thanks for pointing this out...will look for better specifics in next few days.--MONGO 17:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Raised importance rating

[1] An attempt is made to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.[2]SriMesh | talk 03:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wapiti - Cree or Shawnee?

Name-origin on List of place names in Canada of Aboriginal origin for Wapiti River et al. is that the name is from Cree; it appears that US sources credit Shawnee, which is a related Algonkian language; could it be the word is the same. And BTW for the record, a widespread back-bush term for elk in the Pacific Northwest, though less common than it used to be, is the Chinook Jargon word moolack, with a moose being hyas moolack (big moolack); the corresponding word for deer, still very common is mowitch.Skookum1 (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Main page

Elk is scheduled as the featured article on the main page on December 5. Assistance with watching this article is requested and appreciated. Jonathunder (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Date is changed from 12/5 to a TBA date not yet set....the refs are an issue here and there are a few other concerns that need addressing yet.--MONGO 05:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Elk -vs- Moose -vs- European Elk -vs- Wapati

Discussion of naming of these articles and possible solutions at Talk:Moose#Name consistancy (sic). Beeblebrox (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Moose/Elk - Question

Hi, having reading the above talk I should state that this is "only" a question: In which european countries are Alces alces' named Elk? --Honymand (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Alces alces = elk in all of Scandinavia, and also commonly in Britain when referring to a European animal. When I see one in Norway it's an elk; when I see one in Canada it's a moose. Does this help? GNUSMAS : TALK 21:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Nobody in Denmark actually refers to Alces alces as an Elk; it's always Moose in English. In Danish it is of course Elg. But I see that my (rather old) printed dictionary states that Moose is indeed American English (only). Probably Elk is simply a word now lost to many non-native english speakers - at least in Denmark. --Honymand (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm a Dane, and I always refer to an Alces alces as an elk in English. --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I suspect many Scandinavian speakers of English are misled by the predominance of American English, and believe that moose is the only English word for the animal. But in British English the European animal is an elk. GNUSMAS : TALK 19:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
What do Brits, Scots and the Irish call a Red Deer? What do they call this species as their common name when discussing them as they exist in N. America and Asia? I am only asking because I don't know.--MONGO 00:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The European animal, I'd say, is always a red deer. In N America surely they are all now C. canadensis, and hence (American) elk or wapiti. I don't know what the Asian animals would be called - red deer, probably. GNUSMAS : TALK 07:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
K...thanks.--MONGO 23:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

map appears to be inaccurate

Don't you just love it when an article you are involved with is on the main page, it always seems to invite know-it-alls who have never edited the article before to come in and criticize. Just getting that out of the way before I begin. I believe the map showing the range of the elk is flawed, specifically as it relates to the Yukon. There are elk further north and west of what is shown on the map. As you can see here [3] the Yukon government issues elk hunting permits as far north as Carmacks. That and I have seen elk in this region with my own eyes on more than one occasion, but I brought along a source to back me up. I have asked at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop for some information on the data that was used to create the map, but it seems clear we have a problem here, unless I am badly misreading the map, which I don't think I am. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the map represents gretaest population areas mainly. Elk may exist naturally in the Yukon and now with reintroductions in the eastern USA but those regions don't have populations that are considered very dense. I surely wouldn't mind a more accurate map but don't know how to make one.--MONGO 10:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Jafeluv (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Elk → Cervus canadensis — I have a British dictionary from 1932, the New English Dictionary, which says that wapiti is "erroneously" called the elk. It strikes me from discussions at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Main page summaries - Elk for example. and Talk:Moose#Name consistancy that this opinion still holds true to many. In British dictionaries today, such as the Oxford English Dictionary, "elk" is still defined as the moose, with the Canadian deer given as a secondary use only, along with the extinct Irish elk. The word was also used for the eland in South Africa and the sambur in India, historically. So, it seems that, when considered internationally, "elk" means "large deer" and not a specific species. As the Canadian deer is not the primary meaning in much of the world, perhaps Elk should be the disambiguation page. DrKiernan (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

See also this archived discussion from the Main Page errors reports. DuncanHill (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(facepalm) we have all mammals and birds at common name places. Ummm..this would really jar with a whole bunch of articles (about 14000 of them). I think in the interests of conformity this is not such a good idea...but I see the problem...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move it really is unsustainable to have the article about Cervus canadensis at elk - it is confusing to readers and editors from outside North America, it is likely to result in incorrect incoming links (particularly those intended for Alces alces), and gives priority to North American English over other varieties. The binomial is neutral with regard to national or regional varieties of English and is unambiguous. It seems clear to me that we cannot assign a primary meaning to the word elk (which in some older texts is also used for Cygnus cygnus), so the dab page should be at elk. DuncanHill (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are neither elk nor moose in Britain, so what they call the animals has little bearing on what titles we should use. English speakers within the elk's range call it an elk, so that's what we should call it, too. Powers T 14:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment Of course, I forgot that no-one speaking British English would ever want to read about Alces alces or Cervus canadensis, still less edit the articles about them or link to them! People really should remember never to have the sort of enquiring mind that makes them interested in the historic fauna of their own country, or the extant fauna of others. This is a British English thing called sarcasm. DuncanHill (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Sarcasm is unbecoming. If you disagree with my reasoning, just say so. Powers T 15:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with your reasoning. This is an international encyclopaedia with a global readership. We should endeavour to use language which will not confuse people speaking differing national or regional varieties of English. It is particularly important that we do not place articles at surprising or confusing titles, as doing so reduces utility for the reader and makes inaccurate linking more likely. The word elk has a variety of meanings across time and place, which lead to confusion when one meaning is given primacy above all others. DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe it is in the spirit of WP:ENGVAR to favor the English term used in the areas where elk actually live. Powers T 16:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose C. canadensis is universally called an "Elk" in North America: the term is deeply-rooted in American and Canadian culture, with fraternal organizations and place names deriving from the term. British usage seems to be peripheral at best, given the absence of either animal from Britain, and the absence of the (C. canadensis or Alces) animals from British culture at large. I understand the problem, and am not unsympathetic, but it appears to be undue emphasis. You would then have to figure out what to do with Moose, which is a similar can of worms. I think we should accept that English is messy and inconsistent on this point, and give the topic appropriate coverage in the articles, as has been done. I note that swans and geese have at times been called "elk" as well per the disambiguation page, indicating perhaps that the word had more to do with bigness than taxonomy - something that could benefit from further research. Given the fact that moose (or møøse per Monty Python) has cultural currency in Britain for Alces, I don't think we run the risk of confusing too many non-North Americans. Acroterion (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment having elk as an article rather than a dab makes it much harder to check incoming links. British editors are likely to link to elk when they intend Alces alces. Moose is actually a red herring - moose isn't used to refer to two different animals in the way that elk is. Moose does not have cultural acendency in Britain for Alces - At least, dictionaries and books of natural history prefer elk for Alces. DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Going along Acroterion line of argument, Elk is the principal term employed in Canada (Wapiti - a Cree name - being #2). I have to agree with LtPowers that this appears to be a case of WP:ENGVAR. If the potential for confusion is linked to Alces (almost exclusively) than the current approach of using a hatnote seems most appropriate. The Elk article does take time to explain the naming issue, a solution I find far more useful than using a dab. There is also a strong cultural link in North America, particularly with the various aboriginal populations, to the name Elk. Worldwide, I suspect the term Elk is used more extensively to ref. C. canadensis than Alces and no data has yet been presented to show otherwise.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Labattblueboy and others. The hat note carefully explains it for the reader more usefully than a disambig page would. Jonathunder (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I understand why Europeans and especially those from the UK would support this move...however, having been in regions where C. canadensis is a naturally extant species, I assure everyone that the only word I ever heard to describe this animal was elk...I can't remember anyone ever saying they were going wapiti hunting or gee, look at the wapiti..even NPS naturalists don't call this animal anything other than elk. Bear in mind also that this article is based on recent DNA research which indicates that, for all basic purposes, the similar Red deer which is a European deer, and C. canadensis (elk) naturally found only in N. American and east/central Asia are distinct species, even though under forced conditions which do not naturally occur, the red deer and elk can produce fertile offspring. Duncan...I do have a question for my own knowledge base...do residents in the UK call the red deer just that, or is there another name? Also, the word elk used to describe the Whooper Swan and the Irish Elk apparently wasn't either an elk or a moose. I'm not surprised that 3 years later we're still having this debate...maybe after the scientists all agree regarding the various subspecies, the DNA and what not, we can move the article to its species name and then redirect elk to C. canadensis or moose or whooper swan or elephant...who knows.--MONGO 03:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I was hoping we could keep this conversation in one place and come to a solution that resolves this issue for both articles, but here we are not voting already. I believe any move proposal is premature at this time. Yes, it was indeed a mistake (by British explorers of North America who had never seen a European elk before) but that bridge was crossed a long time ago. The fact is that in North America nobody uses "wapati" to describe the animal we all know as an elk, and nobody calls the animal we know as a moose an elk.(I never heard the word before in my life before reading this article, and in fact my American English spellchecker doesn't even know the word wapati) It's confusing and stupid, I'll grant that, but I agree with the remarks above that we can fix this by editing the articles as opposed to moving them. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • To all those who consistently think "wapiti" is an odd, unfamiliar, or unsuitable name: in my WP:ENGVAR, this animal is never called anything but wapiti. couldn't resist, this debate is getting far too heated over ENGVAR, honestly... Iridia (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment this was proposed before in 2008, check talk archive 1. 65.93.13.227 (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The deer is North American, so WP:ENGVAR on it, since British spelling doesn't count for something that is not British, when other viable English-language spellings exist for things that exist in those English-speaking regions. If you want to move something because of British spelling of a North American topic, then we should move British things to North American spellings, as the US has a much larger population than the UK. 65.93.13.227 (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
'Comment - the elk is a European animal - the problem is that the word elk has two common but very different meanings. Did you not bother to read the explanation? DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Further comment - the uestion isn't "what is Cervus canadensis known as in North America?", the question is "what is the word elk used to mean?" Several of the opposes here seem to have missed that point entirely. Elk is a confusing term, people in North America use it to mean Cervus canadensis, people from Britain and Europe use it to mean Alces alces. The article should not be at a title which can equally legitimately be used to mean two entirely different species. The whooper san and goose meanings are archaic, and just serving as a distraction here, no-one nowadays actually uses elk to mean either of those. DuncanHill (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • No, we haven't missed the point; we disagree with you. We don't agree that what the wapiti and the moose are called on an island that has no wapiti and no moose ought to have any bearing on how those animals' articles are titled. Powers T 19:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Wikipedia policy is to use the common name, which is "elk". The encyclopedic approach of handling different meanings for the same article name is to follow the disambiguation guidelines, not switching to more precises, but much less common scientific designations.ANE.Scholar (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
So you're in favour of the article on Alces alces being at elk too? After all, for many English-speakers elk is the common name for Alces alces. DuncanHill (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Look, if you really want to get into an ENGVAR pissing contest (I thought you said at Talk:Moose that we weren't going to go there) we can do that, and come to the conclusion that since this topic is clearly more related to North America than Britain since none of these animals has ever lived in the British Isles (except the extinct Irish elk I suppose). Frankly I can't see any logical reason to move this instead of simply editing the article to fix the problem. The only reason I am hearing is that this is not what people from an area where there are no elk think an elk is. Our quirky little language is full of issues like this, most of them can be solved by simply noting the discrepancy in the article on the subject, and I have yet to hear any compelling reason why that would not be possible in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Article_titles says, "In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique (e.g. "Cuvier's dwarf caiman"), they should be used for article titles. Scientific names should be used otherwise." I think that that applies here. This discussion demonstrates that the common name is not "reasonably unique". WP:ENGVAR is more applicable to "superficial" differences (wording from the guideline). I don't think it can be properly applied in this instance when the result may be confusion or ambiguity. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elk/Archive_1&oldid=1136695962"