Jump to content

Talk:Elk/Archive 4

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Elk. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 21:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Archiving issues

Was just randomly looking at some old discussions here and found that the archive bot has been adding recent discussions to achive 2, when discussions as old as 2012 are already in archive 3. As one-click archiving has become more and more common, and is probably a better fit for this page, I have removed the bot directions and added configuration for one click with {{archive basics}}. I did not move the older content to the newer archive but did place a pointer at archive 3. Copying large swaths of text is a pain on a tablet, or on mine anyway, but if anyone wants to clean that up and then remove the pointer be my guest. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Graham87 06:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Elk. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 04:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Elk. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 17:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elk. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request - Behavior

Male elk begin growing antlers during the spring and summer to be ready for rutting season in the fall. They use their antlers in order to fight off others for females. Once rutting is complete, the male elk will usually shed their antlers. The sooner a male elk mates and sheds his antlers, the more time he will have to grow a bigger pair for the next rutting season. However, some elk are not shedding their antlers right after mating, which is believed to be for self-defense against predators. Predators like wolves are more likely to attack males without antlers than males with antlers. [1]

Shelby.a14 (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

My goodness the gauntlet one must go through to get to that article. There must be an easier access source.--MONGO (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Animal Behavior". The Economist. Retrieved 11 September 2018.

"immune" to bear attacks?

I tagged this as dubious. However, I was able to find the source online [1] and it does say that bears are never successful in taking down an adult male elk. Source seems pretty reliable, but I would still contend that "immune" is not the correct word to use. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Took out spurious addition of events outside the scope of this article and adjusted latest wording to reflect the data.--MONGO (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
looks good. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Massive changes need some discussion

We're seeing some huge changes to this FA level article that deserve further review so opening up this discussion.--MONGO (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed changes made up to the edit at 19:15, December 1, 2020 and restored those changes. After that, one edit orphaned a reference that was restored by a bot.[2]--MONGO (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

As I already stated, I removed several bits of uncited information. In addition I removed lesser quality sources like "Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation" and "Bowhunting.org" and replaced them with peer reviewed articles, which are shockingly scarce in this FA. I also replaced "Elk of North America, Ecology and Management", since no page numbers are given and I'm unable to access it. Please let me continue. LittleJerry (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
A wide range of refs are important and you're overusing Geist.--MONGO (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Do you have access to the 2002 book? If not then while most replace it since there are no pages given. Also you removed my cites in predation which are not to Geist. LittleJerry (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Your edit removed the following detail:

The elk is a large animal of the ungulate order Artiodactyla, possessing an even number of toes on each foot, similar to those of camels, goats and cattle. It is a ruminant species, with a four-chambered stomach, and feeds on grasses, plants, leaves and bark. During the summer, elk eat almost constantly, consuming between 4 and 7 kilograms (8.8 and 15.4 lb) of vegetation daily.[1] In North America, males are called bulls, and females are called cows. In Asia, stag and hind, respectively, are sometimes used instead.

If the issue with that was the reference a better one could be used maybe?--MONGO (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Because it doesn't belong there. It discusses diet and classification in a section that is supposed to be on Physical characteristics. LittleJerry (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The elk is a large animal of the ungulate order Artiodactyla, possessing an even number of toes on each foot, similar to those of camels, goats and cattle....is not about physical characteristics?--MONGO (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
In a sea of non-physical characteristics. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@LittleJerry:...NO this really wasn't discussed at talk. Seems by "talk" you mean its your way or the highway attitude you've been displaying.--MONGO (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes. God forbid someone removes uncited information and low quality sources (including deadlinks) in a FA! LittleJerry (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
And adds spelling errors and removes information that has relevance. Is English not your primary language? Start using edit summaries and put your arrogance in check and act collaboratively. I expect you to start discussing your changes use edit summaries and cease being a bull in the china shop.--MONGO (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Your first edit that you claim "improved" the article...what the fuck was removing this for? Add a reference maybe? This article already had an FAC...so if the article sucks so bad take it to FAR. I'd accept that, but your my way or the highway approach aint going to continue.--MONGO (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I already explained to you why I removed that. "Because it doesn't belong there. It discusses diet and classification in a section that is supposed to be on Physical characteristics" and the source is low quality and is a deadlink. I don't need to justify all my edits to you especially if you're going to use uncivil language. LittleJerry (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
And BTW I did use the edit summaries like here, here, here and here. Clearly in your rage you weren't paying attention. LittleJerry (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Elk Habitat". Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Retrieved 2007-06-04.

Etymology

I have largely rewritten and somewhat expanded the etymology section, since it didn't say much on the word "elk" itself, which is obviously crucial! GPinkerton (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Dupcite

MONGO when you have two sentences supported by the same cite. You don't have to use the cite twice in a row. See Wikipedia:REPCITE LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You can try and combine the sentences into one but since specific potentially questionable data is mentioned in each sentence, each needs a direct citation supporting it. REPCITE is not policy...its not even a guideline, but repairing dead links is part of our recommended guidelines. Whether you use your username or an IP, please do not simply remove material that should be updated with new and recited. You took an already weak section and rather than repair it, you just dumped half of it. This is not the first time you have done this to this article, so I'm inclined to do what I can to prevent you from effecting further changes that are detrimental.--MONGO (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
The link wasn't dead. It moved to the main National Elk Refuge. When I looked up the elk article, it did not support the text. I'm not obligated to replace it. LittleJerry (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I was able to update the data and find a RS in 5 minutes.--MONGO (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Distribution map

At the moment, it shows the current and former native ranges of the elk. This is great and informative. But would it be possible to add a third layer to show introduced ranges? The articles mentions the Appalachians, Ontario, and Argentina, and it would be interesting to see this displayed visually. Idk how to do it, but maybe someone more skilled could take a shot? Blob401 (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

First off, great idea. Secondly, elk have been REintroduced to the Appalachians and Ontario, not introduced. They've only been introduced to New Zealand and Argentina. But I agree. Ddum5347 (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn't the article be renamed "Canadian Deer" as technically calling the animal "elk" is an error even if it is one commonly used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isenhand (talk • contribs)

No. Ddum5347 (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, hard no. Probably the worst solution possible is to make up a novel new name that nobody uses.See Talk:Elk/FAQ. It would also be nice if you bothered to learn how to use a talk page and how to sign your posts. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

not the largest

you literally said "it is often confused with the larger moose". THE MOOSE IS FROM CERVIDAE!!! THE DEER FAMILY!!!! 206.84.143.69 (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be from the same genus to be confusing. They are both very large and some moose are smaller than some elk. Dger (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

They're clearly not the largest, since the page says that elk average 0.75 meters at the shoulder. I tried to correct it from the source, but that's what the source says. At almost 3 meters long, that ranks elk as the largest daschunds in the world, not the largest ungulates. --Rvanarsdale (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty big
I mean, I guess, but c'mon.
There's quite clearly a range of heights, from .75 meters (2 ft 6 in) to 1.5 meters (4 ft 11 in). That's about 5 feet at the shoulder, not the top of the head, for a large bull, which would have a length at the top end of the range. Adult Roosevelt bulls are actually quite impressive in person, but much smaller than, for example, an adult bull Alaska moose. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

remove the photo of the meat?

the article is on elk, not elk meat. 206.84.143.69 (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't elk meat come from elk? Just asking. Dger (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It sure does, and the image is in the section that discusses the meat, so I don't see the point of this suggestion. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Article name

Considering that elk is a common name for both Cervus canadensis and Alces alces wouldn't it make more sense for the articles for both these species to use their alternative names? Having this article be named elk is confusing. It would make more sense to have instead of the current "Moose" and "Elk" to have "Moose" and "Wapiti" and to then move "Elk (disambiguation)" to "Elk". -- PaleoMatt (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read the various previous discussions of this in the archives, in particular this exact idea has been previously rejected. Also see the FAQ at the top of this page, and the edit notice seen when editing the article. Iff you believe you can overcome those objections with some new argument, I'd suggest a formal requested move for both articles. Keep in mind WP:COMMONNAME as well as WP:ENGVAR when researching those are going to be the highest hurdles you would need to overcome if this proposal is to have any chance of success. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Pop by US state

Hello @LittleJerry: I think we should keep this. These areas are larger than some countries and WP:NOTPAPER. Invasive Spices (talk) 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: I also agree this should be put back - one person shouldn't get to dictate what stays on a page based on their personal opinion. You were last pinged about this April, if you don't want to respond then it's going back up. You do not single-handedly control Wikipedia @LittleJerry:. Do not ignore other people's requests to not remove things! Your justification was "unneeded and takes up too much room", yet there are multiple users disagreeing with you! (Jakobees (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC))

I've reverted LittleJerry's completely inappropriate reply to these concerns, feel free to add it back. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
So, I see they reacted that way after you posted a nasty message on their talk page, and attacked them in an edit summary. None of that is ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

"while healthy bulls have never been recorded to be killed by bears and such encounters can be fatal for bears" (GYE)

This is not true. Healthy bull elk have been killed by bears. The study (linked below) gives the record of two mature bull elk in good physical condition killed by a black bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

Predation by Black Bear on Mature Male Elk Author(s): William J. Barmore and David Stradley Source: Journal of Mammalogy , Feb., 1971, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Feb., 1971), pp. 199-202 Published by: American Society of Mammalogists

(https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1378446.pdf?casa_token=BHpPcT7IWYwAAAAA:39T1ExhuRUEWfhd5bGdHk_ylox1iFNhjTHhb86CaQD8jpSUFaBL6_RsRVQx4ME3Kk-4Xu87NR5pd2fIxAwKL-Omg83CnkzjNVP10NBruWdeZEFhpIew)Gimly24 (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, the study published in 1971 proves that they are not immune to bear predation. This former discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elk/Archive_4#%22immune%22_to_bear_attacks?) was made without knowing of the article existence or that the reference given by the users did not mention the article. I would like people to read the article of 4 pages by Barmore and Stradley to correct this idea and to confirm that a revision of this section is needed on the main page. Thanks much. Gimly24 (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Furthermore, the former discussion is possibly a case of misidentification of the prey species. As quoted in the study linked in the archived discussion : "Records of the Olekminsky Nature Reservation during 1988-1999 show 13 ungulate deaths from the brown bear, including 11 A. alces, one Randifer tarandus and one Cervus elaphus. Brown bear attacks on adult male elk are never successful. Even a weak male elk can resist a bear. In October 1980 a big six-year-old brown bear was found dead after crushing an exhausted five-year-old A. alces. A necropsy revealed the brown bear suffered acute abdominal trauma."
Moose are referred as "Elk" in this article, typical of the common name used for them in Europe. The sentences in bold show that they use the term "Elk" for Alces alces (Moose). Gimly24 (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

In brief, there is at least one open-access article about bear predation on healthy bull elk, and to add, it take place in the exact region of the sentence. The replies I made following the first entry of this section of the talk page concerns how a misidentification of the prey species in a former discussion could have resulted in the sentence being included (by mistake) in the article page.Gimly24 (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Multiple edits to Elk

This entry is in response to the multiple edits by 74.70.25.146 (talk) of which there are multiple issues

  • 1 - change of "and one of the largest terrestrial mammals in its native range of North America, as well as Central and East Asia." to "one of the largest terrestrial mammals in its native range of North America and part of Central and East Asia.". a) the "and" after "America" has been used incorrectly here. A possible remedy would be to write "and in". There are other possibilities. But b) - "part of" begs the question what part of Asia? Also wouldn't "parts" be better? Or better still dropping "part" altogether, as the point of the sentence is not to describe the range of the Elk but to impress upon the size. The edit is worse than the original and I am reverting it.
  • 2 - changed "The common name elk, used in North America, creates confusion because the larger Alces alces, which is called moose in North America, is also called elk in British English, and related names in other European languages (German Elch, Swedish älg, and French élan)" to "While the term elk is used in North America, and moose for the larger Alces alces there, “elk” is used for Alces alces in British English, and echoed in related names in other European languages (German Elch, Swedish älg, and French élan)." a) common name is the correct terminology, whilst "term" is at best imprecise and probably incorrect. b) there is improvement in the sentence structure but c) I'm not sure that dropping the reference to confusion is helpful, as it is core to explaining why the sentence is there. I disagree that this is a POV characterization. It is a description of an identified real-world problem d) "echoed" is unnecessarily English-centric. Elk is not a word of English origin. I'll make changes that are a compromise
  • 3 - unexplained gap to discussion of "wapiti". This is a direct follow on from the previous sentence. I will revert
  • 4 - additional wikilinking of moose further in the text. The style manual recommends that secondary articles only be wikilinked once in the primary article. So by that standard this edit should not have occurred. But I'll leave that to someone else to revert at a later date. Same for European red deer - already wikilinked earlier in the article.
  • 5 - added "To help restore the animal to its original North American range and increase its numbers, " - not supported by given citation. This is likely editor speculation, and would need a citation to support it. I will remove because I don't believe such a citation is possible, largely because I don't believe that was the reason.
  • 6 - unexplained removal of the reference to " in the Appalachian region of the eastern U.S". The editor is trying to make the paragraph read better, but in the process is implying that all of the following reintroductions were done for the same reason by the same people. This needs to be addressed by better rewording
  • 7 - IUCN - who|What does IUCN stand for?|date=November 2022 - this is already defined and described in the article under the previous section "Distribution and status". Would help if the editor actually read the article before making amendments. I will remove the query.

I will make the above changes after the editor has had a chance to respond. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 10:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

An actual confused English person and the name of this article (yes, again)

I realise this is an ongoing issue, and I have read about half the previous discussion before giving up for want of the time and energy required, as a result of which, I am making an observation rather than a specific suggestion as to a change.

I want to record that, as an English UK speaker, and not one ignorant about different regional uses of English, I actually thought the page had been vandalised, when, upon wanting to look up the size of Alces alces, i.e, what I refer to as "the elk," I found the numbers here ridiculous.

I did work out it was an American/English-UK usage problem, eventually! But assertions that the English will not be confused by using "elk" unqualifed for Cervus canadensis rather than Alces alces and therefore that it doesn't matter, are false.

If anyone has the stamina to read the whole debate and reopen it, then note, here is a real, actual, confused English person, to contradict any assertions to the contrary!  :-P

I wish we could have a properly separate English-UK Wikipedia, as with fully distinct languages like French and Chinese. I don't really mind the fact that a lot of articles are written with American usage because they have been originally written by Americans or are about American things, but I do mind the insistence that because English-UK speakers are in the minority, there is no need to bother accomodating us in cases of real confusion. Minorities are usually something to be cherished, and it would at least be reasonable to argue that either we should be properly included on a universal English Wiki, (which would, I would argue, mean that a common name for an animal is not truly a common name if it is used for a different animal in England), or allowed our own space in which we can translate everything to our own usage! ><

Anyway, I hope at least there is some amusement to be found in this...  :-) FloweringOctopus (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure how much more accomadating we could be than to have a note at the top of the article, three paragraphs concerning the naming and entymology, an edit notice if you attempt to edit the article, and a FAQ explicitly about this here on the talk page. As noted in the FAQ, it was confused British people that caused this issue to begin with, so it really isn't fair to see it as an American problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
why not use the name wapiti to disambiguate? and make that the title of the article (i am unaware of any existing debate on this, forgive our ignorance) Lynxano (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The name Wapiti is already featured prominently on the page, and is also far more obscure than “elk”. The vast majority of Americans (not to mention the rest of the world) would not recognize Wapiti as the name of this animal, just making this problem worse for everybody, rather than a small confusion for the British. Walshy231 (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
This is incredibly typical of Americans on Wikipedia. I also agree that the page needs to be better disambiguated. Simply asserting that "elk" refers to this species, rather than specifying that it only does no in American English, is confusing and Americocentric. Unfortunately, Americans are the majority on Wikipedia and tend to be very insistent that their variety of English should be the default. This page should certainly be edited to clearly state that the word "elk" only has this meaning in American English. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
"the rest of the world"? You are the only ones in the whole world that don't know what an elk is, the rest of the world calls "alces alces" elk, älg, elg, alces, elch, élan etc. This large deer, wapiti, is clearly not an elk. Humlepungen (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elk/Archive_4&oldid=1239972776"