Jump to content

Talk:Elk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maykii (talk | contribs) at 20:17, 31 August 2021 (→‎Article name: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Featured articleElk is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 14, 2010.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 17, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
June 19, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 28, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 15 January 2021.


"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
looks good. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
A wide range of refs are important and you're overusing Geist.--MONGO (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
In a sea of non-physical characteristics. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Yes. God forbid someone removes uncited information and low quality sources (including deadlinks) in a FA! LittleJerry (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I was able to update the data and find a RS in 5 minutes.--MONGO (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs)

No. Ddum5347 (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]