Talk:Elk/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Elk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Rename as Wapiti

Latest comment: 12 years ago56 comments9 people in discussion

According to A World List of Mammalian Species by Corbet and Hill, this article should be renamed as Wapiti. According to British dictionaries "elk" is the equivalent of North American "moose" (Alces alces), while "wapiti" is more closely related to "red deer" (Cervus elaphus).Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you looked at the FAQ above? Deor (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly...we've been through this repeatedly...the animal is called an Elk by half a billion people..it is the common name for the animal.MONGO 17:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's usually a good idea to go to the talk page before making drastic changes to a featured article, especially if you are wnating to rename it and it already has move protection on it, thats a clue to let you know we've been down this road before. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia naming conventions articles are named according to what the subject is most commonly called in English even if that English usage is not what it prescriptively "should" be. Subjects with different names are handled by redirects. —teb728 t c 01:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the FAQ above because I haven't noticed it at the very end of the list, unfortunately. Please make the FAQ box more conspicuous. Anyway, perhaps another half a bilion people associate the word "elk" with Alces alces, so this ambiguity should be immediately noticeable in Wikipedia, like in the case of watershed. When people search for "watershed", they are directed to the disambiguation page, rather than directly to the North American meaning like here. Moreover, the word "wapiti" should be recommended as the first choice, in my opinion, because it is not ambiguous. In fact, I wonder if all the references cited here truly refer to Cervus canadensis, as the two species may be easily confused by lay people.Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Over the past decade, Cervis canadensis has been the generally desinated species for this animal with the majority of textbooks and papers published since...some older works still classify this animal as well as the Red deer in the same species and if they mate they do produce fertile offspring...however, recent DNA evidence as well as the differences in behavioral and geographical isolation is divergent enough that the species have been split.MONGO 17:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the closely related red deer (Cervus elaphus), but a completely different animal, Alces alces!!! It is named "moose" in America, while "elk" in Europe!!! The early settlers in America confused Cervus canadensis with Alces alces, although they are very different, see the Wiktionary: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/elk. That is the problem! Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes...well aware of this issue...I'm the primary editor that brought this article to featured level...there have been several other discussions regarding this matter and as then, we're certainly not going to alter the common name of this species as it is known to half a billion people just because of an error made in common name misidentification 400 years ago. It is known as elk by all North Americans...that's just the way it is...no one I know of has ever commonly referred to it as a wapiti...and I've been around this species most of my life. You are welcome to check the talkpage archives for similar conversations.MONGO 19:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There may be a good point there about making the FAQ more obvious though. Not sure exactly what we would do to accomplish that... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've thrown together an edit notice for this page, deliberately designed to be obnoxious and difficult to ignore, that asks users to read the FAQ and the talk archives before making such proposals. Wondering if I should make one for the article itself as well... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I just went ahead and did that based on the one for the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, the ambiguity should be immediately noticeable in Wikipedia, like in the case of "watershed". When people search for "elk", they should be directed to the disambiguation page, rather than directly to the North American meaning.Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you said that already, with bolding and everything. The thing is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies. " If a primary topic exists, then that term should be the title of the article on that topic. " Hatnotes, along with the text of the articles themselves, already provide adequate pointers to avoid confusing readers. So, the second you begin to read the page you will easily be able to determine if you are on the right page or not, so I don't see the advantage of redirecting this to a dab. I'm also not so sure you are using the word ambivalence correctly. Our article defines it as "a state of having simultaneous, conflicting feelings toward a person or thing." I don't believe this about feelings, at least it shouldn't be. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, I meant ambiguity in fact. The problem is that in this case two primary topics exist, rather than one. Wikipedia should be edited from a neutral point of view rather than from an American point of view. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There can't be two primary topics, either this is the primary topic or it isn't. Yes, elk is "slightly" ambiguous because of this discrepancy, which is exactly why mechanisms are used in the artilce itself to make that clear. I also don't believe it is accurate to portray this as a POV issue. It is an WP:ENGVAR issue. It is a manifest fact that this topic is more closely related to North America than to The UK. Nobody is "wrong" here, it's just that we use two different words for the same thing. Since these animals do not live in the UK, the North American meanings are used as the article titles (nobody actually uses "wapati" in practice). Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is just the opposite: we use the same word for two very different things. See the Ngram Viewer diagram. It compares frequencies of "elk Alces" and "elk Cervus" in books published in 1950-2000. You can see that their frequencies are quite similar. This confirms the need for making the disambiguation page more prominent, as I've suggested above. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This change will not be made, sorry. It is not that we don't understand you, it's that you are arguing against long-standing consensus and against established guidelines. Multiple editors have told you this now—please take this as a cue to stop belaboring the point. --Laser brain (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The books on the subject printed between 1950 and 200 are a bit out of date since the DNA anaylysis on this species and related species wasn't printed until 2004. Newer websites that are from European sources are adapting to the name of "elk" for the North American native species as well...such as this one from the BBC (though they also say if is known as the wapiti), which again, is not a common name for the animal in its native range.--MONGO 23:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Before 2004, North American elk was also known as Cervus, but Cervus elaphus, rather than Cervus canadensis, so your statement is false. Consensus needs be changed if it is misleading, because all of us (I hope) want Wikipedia to be reliable. The text from the BBC confirms that the authors are unaware of the ambiguity of this word. The solution proposed by me would help to solve this serious problem. It wouldn't "harm" your article in any way. It would only make it more objective. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

One last time...let me break this down for you:

In the countries where English is the first language, neither the elk (as you say wapiti) nor the moose (what you call an elk) exists except in North America.
Elk is the common name of Cervis canadensis...in its native range. Wapiti is an aborginal American name used by a few tribes...it was never generally adopted by the general public in North America.
The most recent reliable sources all say that the common name for Cervis canadensis is elk.
The FAQ and disambiguation page and even a boilerplate here above the talkpage editing window have been adjusted.
The long standing consensus on this featured article has been to keep the title as it is now...MONGO 16:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Finding a consensus to move an article to another contentious name is difficult. Please see WP:TITLECHANGES. Moving it to the scientific name would garner more support, in my opinion. But, I don't think that would succeed either. Beeblebrox, can you lower the alert box temperature a bit, please? I agree that rename discussions are unlikely to be fruitful, but they don't do much harm either. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:FNAME provides specific guidance for fauna articles. It could be argued that it supports "wapiti". But most North American readers would be puzzled by that title. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you simply rename the article as "Elk (North American usage)" or "Elk (North American)"?Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sylwia Ufnalska, you have failed to gain consensus for your issue. It is time to stop belaboring the point—after a full week of constant discourse, it is starting to look like you cannot accept consensus and are trying wear people down until they reluctantly make concessions. Folks have politely responded to you thus far, but let's drop this before the rhetoric turns sour. --Laser brain (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem that Sylwia Ufnalska identified (please see User_talk:Wsiegmund#Elk) affected 2 of the 50 links on the first page of Special:WhatLinksHere/Elk.[1] Camel, Hippopotamus and European bison are linked correctly to "elk" by means of {{Artiodactyla}}. I fixed Białystok and Norway. About 1200 articles link to Elk. If the proportion I found for the first page is representative, about 50 articles have incorrect links to "elk". --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

About all an editor can do is use the quicklinks at the top of this article to redirect them to the article they want.--MONGO 03:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

MONGO, please consider that people thinking about Alces alces may simply write in other Wikipedia articles [[elk]] if they are unaware of the ambiguity. Walter Siegmund's research shows that this does happen sometimes. If "Elk" was a disambiguation page, the people would be warned by a bot that they must be more specific. Many people do not know that European elk and North American elk are very different and do not even belong to the same genus. As a biologist and science translator for 20 years, I've got to know about the North American usage of this word only recently. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been actually trying to figure out if we can do more to avoid this issue coming up every now and then. I am however in general agreement with several comments here as far as the current linking as it is. If we were to make elk a disambiguation page then the issue still exists as to what title to rename this article...additionally, I like all links to go directly to the page that is generally known as the main page...so whenever I were to write an article and want to link to this species and avoid the disambiguation page, I'd have to pipe the link as (for example) [[Elk (North America)|elk]] or something like that...in other words, the situation becomes no better than what we have at present.MONGO 15:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's less convenient to write [[Elk (North America)|elk]] but there is no better solution, I'm afraid. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So...we have to rename if because you say so...I recognize biology is a very broad topic, but it is a bit perplexing that you're only just now learning that the common name of this species in its native range is elk...since you've decided to be arrogantly insist that only your way is acceptable, I can see no reason to further reason with you.MONGO 17:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Not because I say so, but because the name is ambiguous. It may be a bit perplexing to you, too, that this usage was unknown also to G.B. Corbet and J.E. Hill, who wrote A World List of Mammalian Species, published by the British Museum (Natural History). Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Moreover, according to the "New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary" the word "elk" has been used in this sense only since the late 19th century, while in reference to Alces alces it started to be used in the late 15th century. The word "wapiti" has been used in English since the early 19th century. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've gone through 200 of Special:WhatLinksHere/Elk. With Ural River and Oola, I've fixed a total of four errors, two of which I corrected by linking to Moose. The other two should have been linked to Megaloceros giganteus and Ełk, a town in northeastern Poland. About 1200 articles link to Elk. So far, the error rate is 2%; in 1% of cases, the intended link was to Alces alces (Moose). While that rate may be reduced somewhat (halved?) by making "Elk" a disambiguation page, the cost is non-negligible, as has been pointed out above. I oppose making this change. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Walter, for your research. If it's too labour-consuming to rename this article and correct all the links, I'll do my best to emphasize the ambiguity in the article as it is. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see also above, where I entered my answer to MONGO. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits, since they degrade the quality of the article. You removed a reliable source from a statement and added a "citation needed" template for some reason, then added a low-quality source with malformed citations. You are now editing against consensus, and I insist that you stop. Your behavior is now becoming disruptive, since you don't appear to be able to accept that you are not going to get your way. Please, stop now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laser brain (talk • contribs) 23:40, 2012 March 3

I haven't deleted the reliable source but moved it higher!!! Please see the source - it doesn't mention the names listed at the end of the sentence. I've explained it in the edit summary. You shouldn't revert edits if you haven't read them carefully. My edits are not disruptive, but improve the quality of the article. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You added a statement sourced to "vspages.com"; what is that? Please read WP:RS. How exactly does adding a low-quality source improve the article? And, I didn't say you deleted a reliable source. I said you removed it from the statement it applied to. --Laser brain (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The A World List of Mammalian Species was last revised in 1991...maybe the editors may have considered doing a little more research about common names of species in the regions those species are native before writing a book that was supposedly comprehensive.--MONGO 06:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Laser brain, I'm astonished that you seem to ingore the error corrected by me. The cited reference (Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference) does not mention the names Altai wapiti, Siberian wapiti, and Siberian elk anywhere. That is why I moved the reference from the end of the sentence to the middle. Your revert perpetuates the error. As for the reference to vspages.com, I agree that a more reliable source will be better, so I've found one (IUCN Red List of Threatened Species). I hope that you're not prejudiced against women and non-native speakers of English and you'll finally accept my edits. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The gender card and the nationality card played in one sentence, eh? Well done. --Laser brain (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that was totally uncalled for. One of two things needs to happen with this conversation:

1:drop it

2:or ask for dispute resolution

Option 1 recommended. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It is unfortunate and confusing that the same word, "elk," is used for two distinctly different beasts: the Eurasian elk (Alces alces), known in its North American habitats as the "moose"; and the wapiti (Cervus canadensis), commonly called by North Americans the "elk."

Terminological precision is essential to clear communication. In the interest of clarity, why not call Cervus canadensis by the name that was given it by original human inhabitants of its domain — "wapiti"? North Americans less familiar with that term could be referred to this page from a disambiguation page. Nihil novi (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If terminal precision is to be made, we're not going to change the name of the article to a name no one in North America, which is where this animal lives naturally, to a name no one commonly uses. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has a refuge for this animal...it is called the National Elk Refuge...it isn't called the National Wapiti Refuge...the FWS is the federal agency that oversees refuges and manages issues related to endangered species...so in answer to your comment...NO.MONGO 12:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Further review...I get the impression that some wish to make elk be the disambiguation page and rename this page wapiti or elk (north america), then rename moose to moose (north america) and rename the current article titled moose and change that to elk...MONGO 19:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That does seem to be the (misguided) intent. Messing with the moose page would be a terrible idea, the term "moose" is not ambiguous at all, it only refers to one animal and both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGVAR support the decision to name it that way. They also both apply here, I get the feeling this more about people trying to say North Americans are wrong in their naming of these animals. That's not the case, it is simply a matter of using a different name. If I say "I'm getting out of the truck and taking the elevator up to the bathroom" and you say "I'm getting out of the lorry and taking the lift to the WC" neither of us is wrong, we've said the same thing with different words. And, for the umpteenth time, since these animals live in North America and do not live in the UK the subjects are obviously more connected with North American English. That's all there is to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is a coordinated effort to shift the naming strategy of this entire domain of articles to suit Sylwia Ufnalska's POV. It is also interesting to note the sudden appearance of Nihil novi (talk · contribs) above to support Sylwia's position, despite Nihil novi's editing interests being nowhere near this domain. You will note, however, that s/he is a frequent visitor to Sylwia's talk page. --Laser brain (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed. Why should I rename "moose" if it's not ambiguous at all? I'm not going to continue the discussion. It's a pity that you treat people who argue with you like enemies, trying to achieve some secret, hideous objectives. The truth is that I simply wanted Wikipedia to be more reliable thanks to the corrections I proposed. I did not expect that this would be so difficult. I appreciate your hard work in Wikipedia and don't have any intent to degrade it. I would be happy if you also appreciated my contribution to improving this article. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way...I think myself and others here understand why you feel the current title is ambiguous...we're just trying to explain that with mammals we go with common names for where a species lives in its native habitat in the English speaking world...this species only live naturally in North America...they do not exist naturally in any other region where English is the primary language. Changing the title to wapiti would not be the common name for this species...changing it to Elk (North America) would wrongly eliminate the east Asian elk which are the same species according to Geist. Changing the article to the species name would be not in keeping with common name practices for mammal articles...therefore, elk is the title of this article.MONGO 12:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Mongo. I understand that this case is very difficult. On 3 March I suggested here that if it's too labour-consuming to rename this article and correct all the links, I would do my best to emphasize the ambiguity in the article as it was. But my edits were reverted immediately by Laser brain who did not read them carefully. He demanded a more reliable source proving the ambiguity of "Siberian elk". I then found that the name "Siberian elk" according to the IUCN Red List refers to Alces alces ssp. cameloides, alternatively classified as Alces americanus [2]. In fact, all the Asian subspecies of Cervus canadensis are named "wapiti": Altai Wapiti, Tian Shan Wapiti, Manchurian wapiti, and Alashan wapiti. Thus perhaps the best solution would be to name this article Elk / Wapiti. It may seem awkward to you at first glance but please take time to consider this solution carefully. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm convinced that the current name of the article is best...it may not be the best for everyone, but the best overall. I'm having difficulty finding access to some of the books listed in the subspecies section...it may be best to eliminate much discussion about these subspecies until further comparative DNA studies are performed...and behavioral evidence such as mating calls and related rituals are better examined by the specialists...therefore, I think no more than a brief mention of non-North American varieties need be done here, especially considering each has its own article. I'm going to reexamine the evidence this weekend as I have time.--MONGO 04:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The FAQ is silly. Nobody cares about mistakes of early explorers when we determine the naming for this 21st-century encyclopædia. If in one of major English-speaking countries "Elk" is Alces alces, then "Elk" must not lead to Cervus canadensis, but be a dab page. Objections of English-speaking North Americans (BTW not really as numerous as "half billion") could not overweight established British literature and tradition to such extent that the article for Cervus canadensis be named "Elk" despite the ambiguity. "Elk" is its "common name" only for Americans, but Wikipedia belongs to all humanity. "Wapiti" might be not the best solution, and "Elk (North America)" is obviously ugly. Why not simply American elk/American Elk? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

For all the reasons already stated at length above. It's not called an "American elk" by anyone, so that would violate WP:COMMONNAME. Between that policy and WP:ENGVAR, we have more than adequate guidance which tells us that how it is named now is how it should be named. I don't see anything in your remarks that hasn't already been refuted dozens of times in the various discussions here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, recall WP:Disambiguation #Determining a primary topic – it is unlikely that elkists are familiar with provisions of the official guideline, so I attribute their stance to ignorance, not to chauvinism. Were my (and Sylwia's) arguments really "refuted dozens of times", then "the FAQ", BTW initially created by Beeblebrox, would contain something actually helpful (e.g. citing modern books and papers), not only historical essays and gibberish. Existence of this "FAQ" page edited by a couple of users, featured status of the article and the prolonged discussion do not imply existence of the WP:consensus – North Americal elkists just used their numerical superiority all that times. Sooner or later, but "Elk" naming for cervus canadensis will be overturned, so join the compromise searching process today, not when the article will be hastily moved to a new (interim) title. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope you appreciate the irony of accusing others of speaking gibberish when you are making up new nonsensical words for things with every post. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Not that I give much of the above much creedence anyway, but I signed up for one of those free highbeam research accounts and have just been playing around with it to see how it works. What I have found is that scientific journals from around the world use "Elk" to mean cervus canadensis and "moose" to refer to Alces alces, including the journal Alces which deals exclusively with moose issues and is probably the authoratative source on the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that info...I had suspected as much. Neither animal resides naturally anywhere else where English is the native language except in North America.--MONGO 23:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

New section

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Wolf has an 'Attacks on humans' section and Grizzly bear has a 'Conflicts with humans' section. I don't wish to OR but when I lived in Jasper, Alberta most of use knew that elk were far more agressive to humans than wolves or bears. Thoughts about a similar section?--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Most animal articles should have an "Interaction with humans" section explaining pros and cons. Just remember to bring your refs. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Found one here: http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/ab/jasper/visit/visit7a.aspx#elk I will keep looking. I try to avoid editing articles that I an not a regular at when they are featured. I will keep looking for refs though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

An expert with more detail about calving and rutting seasons being dangerous. "Arizona Game and Fish Wildlife Manager" We call it 'fish and game', typo?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Elk rescues marmot from drowning. Seems to show signs of intelligence that I wouldn't of thought possible. Probably not worthy of putting in the article though. They call it a moose in the headline.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the "dangers" that elk pose to humans are going to be that easy to source. Perhaps we can instead discuss the number of elk that are legally hunted and those that are poached. The reason human interactions may appear in the wolf article is to dispel the folklore about their supposed savagery...--MONGO 19:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Just looked on highbeam, got mostly false positives, what I did find is all about the dangers humans pose to elk, except for one article that mentions that they can carry chronic wasting disease and cause car accidents. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I do remember seeing I think on a podcast at the Yellowstone National Park official website a scene where an elk is attacking a car...but again, about the most I know as to when elk are dangerous is when they are being hunted and how bad they react if only wounded. I think I heard a story or two about car vs elk accidents in which one or more passengers were killed when the elk came in through the windshield. I also was involved in the rescue of a man that was severely injured when a moose jumped onto the snowmobile he was on...but that's a different critter.--MONGO 03:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Heres a clip...not a reliable source, though it is from the National Park Service...[3]--MONGO 04:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Elk Are a Different Animal

Latest comment: 9 years ago23 comments8 people in discussion

My general viewpoint is North American, probably aggressively North American. However, the settlers who came here had evidently not seen any wildlife. This animal is a very large deer, closely related to the red deer. Certainly the moose, or really elk, is also a very large deer but it is more distinctive. Give the name elk back to the bigger animal with the odd-looking antlers and call this something ending in "deer." 65.79.173.135 (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not our decision to make. Since you apparently missed the rather large, obnoxious edit notice that you should have seen when opening this page, may I direct your attention to Talk:Elk/FAQ which addresses this issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The FAQ does not however address as to why the American English should have priority to the word when the British English both pre-dates the American and does not use the word "moose". It should be pointed out that British English is the preferred variant in North Europe (including Russia) where "elk", "Elch", "älg" and so forth has its natural habitat. 78.70.77.75 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The FAQ does address why we use North American English to describe a North American animal. Since you missed it, please re-read the third sentence of the FAQ. Jonathunder (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be all well and dandy if it wasn't that it also means forcing use of American English to describe a European animal while prohibiting the natural use of British English for the same. More to the point, the FAQ doesn't address why "moose" is given precedence over "elk" as article name for Alces alces. BP OMowe (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Since neither animal exists in the British Isles, the primary locale for English speakers in Europe, maybe it's best to use the common name in those regions were the animals exist naturally and English is the primary language....in other words, Canada and the USA.--MONGO 16:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That is possible, but not mentioned in the FAQ the first reply was directing to...which was what I pointed out. Since I can't seem to find the archived discussions about the topic I can't say how reasonable the decision is, or how strong the consensus for it is. BP OMowe (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It's been an off and on topic for many years and the current naming may not be perfect or pleasing to everyone but the fact remains that in those places where the animals exist naturally and where English is the primary language, this species is known as the elk and what is called an elch in Eurasia is a Moose.--MONGO 16:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I know this point has been discussed a lot but the most simple and fair solution is to call the article on alces alces "Moose" and the article on cervus canadensis "Wapiti". With the page "Elk" being a disambiguation page leading to both articles. This uses two titles which are not ambiguous and takes no precidence over North America or Europe/Eurasia. Lemonade100 23:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd move both to their scientific names. That would make biologists happy and is consistent with WP:FAUNA, "Do not use vernacular names when it is not clear to what the name refers." Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I support a move to using the scientific names. DuncanHill (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I would be opposed to any title change. Where the animal lives naturally it is known as an Elk. No one calls it Wapiti or by its Latin name. --MONGO 04:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The First Nations are "no one"? I feel sure you did not intend to say that. And I feel sure that the article is not only read by, or looked for by, people who live amongst the creatures. Wikipedia is a global resource. DuncanHill (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Where does the species live naturally....what is it the common name of the species where it exists naturally? Our guidelines are clear...see WP:FAUNA...we use common name for mammals of one species. The common name of this species where it exists naturally is Elk.--MONGO 11:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And yet for plants we use binomials. The "common name", in this case and I am sure in others, is not clear and unambiguous. Redirects and dab pages exist for exactly this sort of thing. A blind reliance on guidelines with a disregard for the effects of them is not helpful. DuncanHill (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

DuncanHill...you've been making this same argument for years now and yet the page remains at Elk. When are you going to stop banging this drum? Never mind....I get it....the hundreds of millions of North Americans that call this species Elk can all go to hell I guess.--MONGO 14:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hundreds of millions of North Americans are sufficiently intelligent and aware of the wider world to appreciate that differences in English usage exist around the world, and that when precise naming of an animal species is required then the binomial is appropriate (your opinion of their capabilities may be lower than mine). And that I have commented on this before does not disqualify me from commenting on it again. I didn't start this thread, by the way! DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And I would add that prior to this thread I don't think I've said anything here for about three years - certainly, I've not responded to your numerous posts on the matter since then. DuncanHill (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Cervus canadensis redirects to Elk...that works fine as far as I can see and meets guidelines.--MONGO 16:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

But elk does not point to Alces alces. Not is it, as would be more appropriate, a disambiguation page. DuncanHill (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And it is never going to because Moose and Elk are the common names for those species in the countries where they exist naturally. You can type the Latin names in and it will get you to the articles you want in these cases.--MONGO 17:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Problem is that the countries in which the animals live naturally have been invaded by foreign speaking people, which leave us with some predicament, no? Jokes aside, "elk" has been the word for Alces Alces since least Roman Empire was around in several languages. That Americans get themselves confused does not change that. Good news though, it seems like Alces alces and Alces americanus are different species, solving the whole thing. BP OMowe (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Alces americanus was redirected [4] to Moose many years ago...what has changed?--MONGO 02:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Second hand sources supporting the taxonomy :-) BP OMowe (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sound-File

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I´m sorry, I don´t know how to convert the sound-file here in en:WP, but the older file was the sound of an american elk or moose (alces alces), not from an elk or wapiti...--WajWohu (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks...I took care of it.--MONGO 20:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Burcellosis section needs to be updated to reflect current research

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Elk to cattle transmission has been inferred in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem in all 3 states (Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho), not just in Idaho. Due to current Bison management practices, Bison to cattle transmission rarely if ever happens as Bison are not allowed to leave the park during time periods when they would intermingle with cattle. However elk are widespread and occasionally mix with domestic livestock during the early spring when the risk of transmission of Brucella abortus is highest. Currently the seroprevalence of Brucellosis in elk is increasing as is the area where seropositive elk are found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.51.144 (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Cervus elaphus vs Cervus canadensis

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have edited this page previously to reflect that the scientific and management community generally accept the scientific name of north american elk to be Cervus elaphus, not Cervus canadensis. Even the citations at the bottom of this article have it listed as Cervus elaphus, additionally this species is refrenced in the Journal of Wildlife management as Cervus elaphus. This page should be changed to reflect the true taxonomic name of this species.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:MVClawson (talk • contribs)

The DNA studies indicate they are different subspecies. The behavioral characteristics are divergent enough that if the subspecies xoexisted, mating between them would be rare. Red deer and elk are more divergent than the subspecies of bison yet they too are considered seperate susbspecies.--MONGO 18:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Elk Distribution Map Update

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The "recent" zone shown in the "Former (light green) and current (dark green) ranges of Cervus Canadensis" map does not include any populations east of the Mississippi besides Michigan. Kentucky and Pennsylvania have significant populations, and Tennessee and Wisconsin have populations as well.

One map alternative could be: <http://www.tennesseevalleyrmef.com/ElkRange_HistoricalCurrent.jpg>

Wisconsin DNR Elk page: <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/elk.html> Kentucky 2013-14 Elk report: <http://fw.ky.gov/Hunt/Documents/1314ElkReport.pdf> Tennessee WRA Elk page: <https://www.tn.gov/twra/article/elk> Pennsylvania Elk Viewing Page: <http://www.visitpago.com/elkviewing/> — Preceding unsigned comment added by OakSavanna (talk • contribs) 19:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wapiti from Shawnee and Cree?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi!: if: 'Wapiti', means: 'White rump', in the Native American languages Shawnee and Cree, you don't need being an expert in languages to notice that: 'Waa', is cognate to: 'White', and: 'Piti', close to: 'Pit', and: 'Pit', and: 'Pit', leads to the slang: 'Hole', for the female genital apparatus. Is this name actually derived from a Native language, or is some type of: 'Pidgin English'? It's not the only resemblance that can be found in American names to European languages, the name: 'Teononacatl'='God's flesh', Mexican Natives gave to the Peyote cactus, sounds too close to the classical Greek term for: 'God'='Theos', and to the English term for animals breed for meat: 'Cattle', to be a fortuity. Would someone add to the roots of these names in Native American languages? Thanks, best regards, + Salut--Caula (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 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}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Elk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.