Talk:Deer

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 February 2021 and 28 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nautas99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Photos overlapping
The photos were overlapping each other. I deleted one of them. If somebody can fix the overlapping problem, then we can put the photo back. -- Zoe

Language
In earlier forms of English, "deer" was a general term for any animal, just as "Tier" remains the German word for animal. "Hart" Like Andrew Davies and "hind" were the common terms, just as we have no really common English name for both sexes of bos taurus (Cows and Bulls) today. At some point deer became the exclusive term for a specific type of animal. I'm not sure if this fits in with all of the information about harts, hinds and so on, but I think its a fascinating note. [[User:Syncrolecyne|Syncrolecyne]


 * Doesn't "stag" deserve its own article, or at least a disambig page? It has more than one meaning in English, and I think the others are worth mentioning. 129.2.211.72 08:04, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)-Rhianna Parker

Main image
I think that we should have a male deer as a main image because of the antlers. I don't oblige you, but I think it would be better like that. Just take the lion as an example, I'm sure that if they would have to keep one of the two images, they would keep the male one because of its mane.


 * Why not both? Yes I agree that a male deer should be the main image, but why not have a male and female in the same picture instead?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachpw (talk • contribs) 17:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned sentence
I just removed the following sentence from the article:


 * There are European Red Deer in the Atlas Mountains of Algeria and Tunisia in Northern Africa.

I removed this because it seemed entirely redundant and unnecessary in its context: the preceding sentence had already stated that there are indigenous deer populations on every continent except Antarctica and Australia, so it seems unnecessary and rather curious to comment at this point on a specific European species of deer living in Northern Africa. If someone can find a better place for this information, please reinsert it. Job L 17:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fawn picture
Can anyone confirm whether this fawn is a Roe Deer. This website describes the fawn as having two distinct lines of white spots running from the nape of the neck either side of the dorsal to the rump, which would seem to fit. However, I'm not sure whether this is sufficient to identify a Roe Deer fawn. The fawns of Fallow Deer would seem similiar, but also have a black stripe down the centre of the back. -- Solipsist 13:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The fawn is that of a white-tailed deer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.4.98 (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"Hartless hinds"
... strikes me as a notable Shakespearian pun ... "heartless arses" --FOo 01:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Five-Species Picture
The second panel in the five-species picture claims that the pictured deer is a Fallow Deer, however the page the image links to actually identifies that image as a Sika Deer (note the non-palmate antlers).
 * Certainly looks like one to me. Caption amended accordingly. Anaxial (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

White-tailed Deer Picture
It is a mule deer.


 * I dunno, you could be right, but the USDA Research Service has it captioned "In the Northeast, the white-tailed deer is the primary host for adult blacklegged ticks." -- Mwanner | Talk 22:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Image improperly labelled?
The image labeled White Tailed Deer looks like a Mule Deer. Fred Bauder 12:18, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * It is tagged wrong, I changed it. 12.177.80.3 (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Explain how it's a Mule Deer. The source is the US government and it lists the locaton as the northeast US. There are no Mule Deer there. Besides I sure the government is reliable for labeling species.


 * And allow me to make my own case that it is a whitetail. Look at the antlers. They all stem from a single beam. Mule Deer have "fork" antlers. Bobisbob2 (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't comment on which this is – I can only do European deer. However, I see that mule and white-tailed can hybridise – could this be a hybrid?


 * As to a government source guaranteeing accuracy, that sounds unreliable to me – it's all too easy to get images muddled between the camera and the web page. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Still the deer has antlers like a whitetail and no one has stated the case for why they think it's a mule. Bobisbob2 (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely a picture of a Mule deer. My source is the Colorado Parks & Wildlife Big Game Brochure, Page 13...of particular importance is the size of the ears and the tail area. These are the crucial indicators hunters MUST use before harvesting. You will find the identification indicators of a White-Tailed deer on the same page. Pflucier (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC) pflucier

Fetus
When one is not prepared to see an aborted deer fetus it can be rather jarring.


 * What purpose does this photograph serve? It isn't a very good photograph and doesn't seem to be related to the article other than it is a deer.-Crunchy Numbers 17:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

red deer
The article about elk or red deer states that they exist in the wild in Northern Africa but this article states that deer don't live in Africa. Does anyone know which is correct?-Crunchy Numbers 17:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There are supposed to be Red Deer in the Atlas Mountains in North Africa. I don't think Africa should be in the list of deerless continets. On the other hand, the range of deer and the number of deer in Africa are very small. Will in New Haven

From the article: Deer are widely distributed, and hunted, with representatives in all continents except Australia, Antarctica, and Africa. Australia does have six introduced species of deer that have established sustainable wild populations from Acclimatisation Society releases in the 19th Century.

This seems like a contradiction to me: if there are sustainable populations in Austrailia then how can we say all continents except Australia?-Crunchy Numbers 16:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Deer in Australia were introduced and survive on farms and in the wild. However, they are no more native to Australia than the tigers in the Bronx Zoo are native to the U.S. Will in New Haven

Are there any deer in the south pole? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.87.79.246 (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

ANd i know that New Zealand being a part in the Australian continent, know that there is red stag in New Zealand-Tanner — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexWeston (talk • contribs) 10:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Deer were introduced to New Zealand in the same way, and at about the same time, that they were introduced to Australia. Of interest is the fact that these species apparently found the NZ environment more suitable than those in Australia, as the sizes of the wild populations in both countries show. As an aside, New Zealand isn't a part of the Australian continent (it's more closely related to South America, in fact). GMCLD (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Car crashes
Here is a CNN article about the impact of deer-related car accidents and the costs of damages in the U.S. The statistics could possibly be added to the economic significance section if desired. --Nehrams2020 00:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC) hi

We can do better than CNN, I believe. The deer-automobile crash situation is a growing problem and in the Midwest U.S. many over the road trucks are now equipped with large crash bumpers to reduce animal hit damage, as has been done in Australia for some time, to reduce kangaroo collision damage. I will add good sources as I find them. homebuildingHomebuilding (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

deer was included in this article

In the article on Elk it is made clear that they had some problems so they had to get the story straight lthough closely related. In this general article on Deer, it is stated that they are the same species. Oddly enough, each article claims that the earlier information was the opposite and that recent research support what was claimed on that page. I think that the "not the same species" information is the one currently best supported by evidence but someone should clear it up. Will in New Haven


 * I made the change. The two have been determined to be separate species.  The article on the North American Elk and Red Deer are now separate.--Counsel 20:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for editing this page, Floridan, actually there are three species of deer under the Subgenus Cervus, they are the European Red Deer, Central Asian Red Deer, and Wapiti or North American Elk. The North American Elk also lives in Siberia and Mongolia, and the Asian form is called Altai Maral. It looks exactly like the North American Elk.

I listed the Subgenus (subgroupings) under the Genus Cervus and Genus Axis.

Under Central Asian Red Deer, I deleted the link to Maral because the designation Maral refers to the East European Red Deer (Cervus elaphus maral), a subspecies of the European Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) and NOT the Central Asian Red Deer (Cervus affinis). The Altai Maral is an Asian race of the North American Elk and belongs to Cervus canadensis canadensis. There are several races of North American Elk (Roosevelt Elk, Rocky Mountain Elk, Merriam Elk, Eastern Elk, Manitoba Elk, California Tule Elk, Siberian Elk, Altai Maral, Tianshan Wapiti), but they all belong to one subspecies, Cervus canadensis canadensis.

I also erased the vandalism in the first paragraph saying that the deer is a retarded animal.--User: dlc_73 17:34 15 December 2006

You know, childish and idiotic as that vandalism was, for some reason that really tickled me this morning. (Keep in mind I'm incredibly jet-lagged right now, but still.)--Raulpascal 15:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Snow on a Deer's back can stay for hours.
"Snow on a Deer's back can stay for hours." Is this some joke or is it someone stating a fact. It doesnt seem to fit into the article at all. --Viren 09:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/White deer
The article was PRODed. I and another prod patroller weren't sure what to do with it, so we are bumping it to AFD for wider input. GRBerry 03:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fossil deer?
All the deer on the taxonomic list are still alive (or perhaps recently extinct). It would be nice to list a few extinct species, such as Megaloceros or Sivatherium. 71.217.114.221 22:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a few. Although not Sivatherium, as that's a giraffe.Anaxial (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I updated a more fulling, but yet still incomplete taxonomic list of the extinct species. Does anyone know a list that contains ALL the valid, fossil species? It could really use some help. 4444hhhh (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

New article: Reindeer hunting in Greenland
I have finally gone public with my new article:


 * Reindeer hunting in Greenland

-- Fyslee/talk 07:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Obvious Contradiction
From the article, Quote 1: "The antlers grow wrapped in a thick layer of velvet and remain that way for several months, until the bone inside is hard; later the velvet is torn away (not shed contrary to popular belief)."

Quote 2, just a few paragraphs down: "Antlers grow as highly vascular spongy tissue covered in a skin called velvet. Before the beginning of a species' mating season, the antlers calcify under the velvet and become hard. The velvet is then shed leaving hard bone antlers."

I'm not sure which part is correct. As it stands now, this article contradicts itself. Rearden Metal 11:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The second quote is the more correct. The skin of the immature, growing antler is covered with dense, short, fairly fine hairs which feel quite soft. It's this hair covering that gives the name "velvet" to immature antler. The antler begins to calcify from the base, and is fully calcified (in red deer) within a few weeks. After full calcification the skin dies and is removed, in a process called "stripping" or "fraying". GMCLD (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Where's the black-tailed deer?
there seems to be a structural issue or something.--- Black-tailed deer have a page but you can't get there from here......Rvannatta 00:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is another (less common) name for the mule deer. I've added this info to the species list, to clarify the situation. Anaxial (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Lifespan?
Anyone know the average lifespan of a deer? 8thstar 14:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the species. Whitetail I believe only live about 5 years or so, barring car crashes. --Raulpascal 15:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fix antler section
Someone needs to fix the antler section, as there's a sentence that's broken. I can't because it's locked. The text from 12/07 is: "Before the beginning of a species' mating season, the antlers calcify under the velvet and become hard. The velvet is then torn away leaving hard bone antlers. After the mating season, the pedicle and the antler base are separated by a layer of tissue, and the antler falls off. " Jaiden0 (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidently, the article is no longer locked. I have made the correction.  Kostaki mou (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Antler picture
I was considering replacing the first picture in the antler section with my picture of a deer with a missing antler, but I don't think it is quite clear enough in the small size. The larger size is useful for showing that an antler is shed, but I don't know how to change this image to show that better in the small size. Hustvedt (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Question
What happens to all those antlers that are shed? 205.250.187.19 21:43, August 3, 2008 (UTC)

Deer antlers are rich in nutrients are consumed by rodents such as squirrels. User:dlc_73 16:37, August 18, 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:JBZ logo.JPG
The image Image:JBZ logo.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:Der Berggeist.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

African deerlike animals: Okapi
I changed "All other animals in Africa resembling deer are antelope." to "All other animals in Africa resembling deer are antelope or giraffids.", with the edit summary "Okapi". User:Jamesontai has requested that I "provide an informative edit summary". I believe that I already did this, but, to clarify -- I believe that the Okapi is an African animal which resembles a deer. IMHO Okapia johnstoni is especially superficially similar to Cervus canadensis (females, or males when not in antler.) -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Elk
I object to the use of the word "elk" without any qualifier to refer to the American Elk. The original meaning of the word was Alces alces (called a moose in America). I made changes to correct this, but MONGO reverted my edit. I do not intend to discuss this anymore here, I just want to register my objection. Also pronghorns are not antelope. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Elk" is a bit of a problem name. It's used for wapiti in Australia, but I understand that it can refer to either Alces alces or Cervus elaphus in North America. GMCLD (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Deer antler trade
We need something about trade in deer antlers, in China, either under 'Antlers' or 'Economic significance'. Cossaxx (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Facial gland
Which one does not have a facial gland in front of each eye? I need the species or the genus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.96.215.24 (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Domestication
I've seen a couple of stories about deer bonding with humans and was wondering how and why do deer become domesticated and how common this is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.237.68 (talk) 07:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are numerous cases where people adopt deer as pets, or at least, raise them in captivity, i.e., finding a fawn with a dead mother, etc. The only two deer that I can think of that are truly "domesticated" would be the Pierre David's Deer, which has been extinct in the wild for centuries, and the Lapland populations of reindeer, which is used for meat, and hide, and a beast of burden.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect map
The map showing the range of deer does not have deer in New Zealand coloured. The article mentions deer in New Zealand several times, so this is inconsistent. Same goes for Australia.


 * The map shows the native range of the family; it is not intended to include introduced herds. Perhaps that could be made clearer, though, so I've amended the caption accordingly. Anaxial (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There are no native cervidae in Sub-Saharan Africa, the map incorrectly shows some unspecified presence in tropical West Africa. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The map is also incorrect in showing that there are no deer in Monogolia, I am no expert on the subject but there clearly are between wapiti and siberian roe deer. This map is misleading and I hope someone who is more knowledgeable on the subject can change it to a more accurate map. Onexargetian (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

In heraldry
With Huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus), also known as the South Andean deer.

190.160.64.41 (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Someone could add the coat of arms of Ontario, Canada, as it has both a moose and a deer featured.

And also the Queensland, Australia coat of arms. GMCLD (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

White deer coloration
Just noticed that the section on the white deer at the Seneca Army Depot indicates that:

"The white deer coloration is the result of a recessive gene."

Research conducted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation starting in the 1960s and continuing through the 1970s studied the white coloration. Martin and Rasmussen in their paper commented on the breeding experiments done over a period of years on the white deer:

"The breeding experiment presents strong evidence that coat color in deer, white or brown, is controlled by genes in a single locus and that white is dominant to brown. Additional research is necessary to determine if this is full dominance or partial dominance".

Martin, Patrick P. and Gerald P. Rasmussen, An Investigation into the Mode of Inheritance of White Coat Color in White-tailed Deer. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. March 30, 1981.

- http://alcuria.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/martin-patrick-p-and-gerald-p-rasmussen-an-investigation-into-the-mode-of-inheritance-of-white-coat-color-in-white-tailed-deer-new-york-state-department-of-environmental-conservation-march-30-1/

So a more appropriate sentence might be:

"Strong evidence suggests that white (and brown) coat color is controlled by genes in a single locus and that white is dominant to brown. Additional research is necessary to determine if the dominance of white coat color is full or partial."

Integre (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

rumen anatomy and function
The comment that deer rumens are simple and small applies only to animals like the roe deer, which are at the concentrate selector end of the feeding behaviour spectrum. Red (C. elaphus) and rusa (e.g. R. timorensis) have rumens similar in size, anatomy and function to those of sheep and cattle. The article by Hoffman is worthwhile reading (Hofmann, R. R. 1985. Digestive physiology of the deer.... In P. Fennessy and K. Drew (eds) Biology of Deer Production. Royal Society of New Zealand, Bulletin 22. GMCLD (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 July 2013
Dowsleyjr (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC) noun plural deer, (occasionally) deers.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It appears some (but not all) dictionaries list "deers" as an alternative, albeit nonstandard, plural, but as Wikipedia is not a dictionary I don't think it's advisable to go off on a tangent about alternative plural forms here. BryanG (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

"Deers" as the plural of deer
The plural "deers" is used when referring to more than one species. For example: Whitehead, G.K. 1972. Deers of the World. London: Constable & Company. 108.17.71.21 (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 October 2013
On the range map: The range in central Africa corespond to Hyemoschus aquaticus which is now (as all the Chevrotains) placed in the Tragulidae. The map should therefore be modified. Best Regards,

Chouchka (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Thanks, I believe that's correct. What is needed is not an edit to this article but an updated version of File:Deer range.png. Unfortunately, the editor who created the map has retired from Wikipedia and not edited for 16 months. I don't know how to do this. Anyone? --Stfg (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2014
Hello. In the Taxonomy section, Subfamily Capriolinae (New World (telemetecarpal) deer), Tribe Capreolini, Genus Alces, there are 2 species, Elk and Moose. Please change "Elk (Alces alces)" to "Moose (Alces alces)" as the elk did not originate in the New World and this is a simple typo. In fact, if you click on "Elk (Alces alces)" it takes you to a Wikipedia window with information about moose. Moreover, if, for any reason you decide to keep Elk under the Genus Alces (which is a mistake), you should then change the scientific name in brackets: Elk (Cervus canadensis) and not Elk (Alces alces). Thank you.

Fernanda.Mejia.S (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have instead changed the "elk" line to read "Eurasian elk", as A. alces is apparently called "elk" in that part of the world. The next line "Moose" should alleviate confusion on the subject. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2014
the first picture is defiantly an elk, not a deer. Please fix

70.127.69.79 (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Elk are a type of deer. The picture is appropriate. Anaxial (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2015
'The evolution of deer took about 30 million years.' - requires reference. 'about 30 million years' sounds like someone just made it up on the spot.

65.175.195.137 (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The reference is reference #17. It's on page 19. See here. Stickee (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Deer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120209034118/http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ScientificPublications/pdfs/232EE5C5-807F-48DE-8EFC-B49C347D471B.pdf to http://nationalzoo.si.edu/publications/scientificpublications/pdfs/232ee5c5-807f-48de-8efc-b49c347d471b.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit
You recently made very large changes to the article. By making such large changes in one edit, it is extremely difficult for other editors to see what changes you have made. I noticed one change - you have deleted "The evolution of deer took about 30 million years" - was sourced. You should not be deleting sourced information from an established article unless you have a good reason to, and this should be in the edit summary. You have edited the evolution section. Almost any change to the evolution section of an animal article will be controversial and therefore must be taken to the Talk page. DrChrissy (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please understand that I and are working on the article since yesterday and we have made many other major changes. I have worked really hard on this section the whole day and your undoing it without even asking me for an explanation appears unjustified to me. Chiswick Chap has already removed a lot of unsourced info, and I removed just a few paraphrases and info that I stated more clearly. Yes, the claim was sourced and I was going to add it back in in a better way so that it would not be a straight paraphrase from the source. If I volunteer to help with this when I could not notice many editors around then please contact me first when you disagree with any of my changes instead of reverting them at once. Thanks,  Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 18:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest we restore Sainsf's changes, adding back the 30 m.y. claim with its reference. I'll then add an image or two of early species to the section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I do not like mass deletions just to save a few lines that were going to be added in a bit later. And I was thinking of adding a timeline as in Canidae to go with Evolution, but please add the images till I am done with the timeline. Thanks, Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 18:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I'm sorry Sainsf, that is not the way it works here. If you had made just small changes and I disagreed with these, I would have gone to the Talk page before reverting.  You made a single massive change and left an edit summary as "rewrite".  The edit summary should explain why the rewrite was necessary.  You need to justify your edits, small or large. You were warned about similar behaviour at the Cheetah page. DrChrissy (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, then we'd better cut what is not needed of the old material, with edit summaries, and add the new material back in stages, with edit summaries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would go with Chiswick Chap's suggestions. See, to be frank I have seen most editors working on articles all by themselves without contacting on talk pages. Possibly because unless editors are visibly working on the article they fear slow progress. I am not against collaborative efforts, but why should not I try to be bold and help as I can? I am happy to have other editors help here, it's fun. But I am trying to make the most out of my free time. My edits appear massive as they were an attempt to keep the article reader-ready. And none of it is controversial. I have had this idealogy for all articles I have helped with, not just Cheetah or Deer. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 19:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I know you are a very well established and highly respected editor.  Therefore, I agree to you making the reversions of my revert (presumably you have read Sainsf's edits and agree with them), but could you please do this in handleable sized edits.  By the way Sainsf, I did not make the mass revert just to save a few lines; I believe I have seen several other problems.  I will point these out as Chiswick Chap makes the reversions. DrChrissy (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I didn't know I was volunteering! OK, I'll see what I can do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I would love to learn. Sorry for all the inconveniences I have caused. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 19:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Sainsf, you have mentioned in almost every discussion I have had with you that you want to edit quickly. Creating and editing articles is not a race.  The article will be there next week, next month next year.  I very often edit articles, including making bold edits, without using the talk page.  But that is because I believe they are not controversial.  By deleting "The evolution of deer took about 30 million years" it was always bound to be a controversial edit.  I do not understand why you would delete something you intended to come back to and re-insert. DrChrissy (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not in for any race. Perhaps I am not accustomed to slow editing, and I don't have resources at all times. I found that the 30 mya line was a complete paraphrase, so I removed it for the moment. I was thinking of adding it in some different way. I think I should slow down, I would love to have your suggestion. :) How would you like it if I worked continuously on the article but made small changes each time with better edit summaries? (Going offline for today) Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 19:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reassembled the bits, with images, and done a tiny amount of copy-editing. Some more merging and possibly deleting is needed, as I've avoided removing the existing text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your work on this, . What is to be done next? Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 00:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Next? Merge the new with the old: either find refs for old uncited bits, or remove them as WP:OR; copy-edit to ensure nothing is said twice, and contradictions are resolved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will be more careful. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 06:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 13:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Cloudogram
Are Clauldograms and evolutionary trees the same?208.114.41.213 (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, considering as how cladograms show who's related to what, and evolutionary trees show which evolved from whom.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2017
2606:6000:FF49:5E00:65BF:2CA:9020:CAE0 (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC) Rejected - no request made. Anaxial (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Confused about African Deer
In the map of the range of deer, it includes the range of the water chevotrain, which the article also states is not a "true deer" and is in its own family. This might be confusing and maybe should be fixed, but perhaps I am just being nit-picky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deer. 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:
 * Added tag to https://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijb/article/download/25567/16607
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130504233808/http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/Hunt_Trap/deer/disease/cwdinformation.asp to http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/Hunt_Trap/deer/disease/cwdinformation.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

wildlife
According the article of [|cattle] In older English sources such as the King James Version of the Bible, "cattle" refers to livestock, as opposed to "deer" which refers to wildlife. --Backinstadiums (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed edits
I would like to add a section about hooves to the description section and link it to the hoof wikipedia article, using these sources. I would also like to add some information into the antler section about how humans use deer antlers using this source. It might make sense to break up the section titled economic significance into two subsections, such as hunting and car accidents. The discussion about diseases transmitted to humans in this section is already mentioned in the disease section above and seems repetitive. Let me know what you think about these ideas!Nautas99 (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert by any means, but here are my thoughts: I'm not so sure about that first source. The other two seem fine.  I suppose it might be fine to add a section about hooves, but I just wonder how important that is in an article specifically dedicated to just deer, since hooves are not unique to deer.  For example, the broader even-toed ungulate article discusses hooves as hooves are common to all members.  Perhaps a discussion of the comparative anatomy of hooves might be better suited in the article for all members of Ruminantia (the ruminants), since that is the point in the evolutionary tree where they diverged from hippos and whales (Whippomorpha).  (Check out the evolutionary tree on the Ruminantia page.)  Just something for you to consider.  Information about humans using antlers would not be appropriate in the antler sections, since that section is strictly about deer anatomy.  Rather, the second paragraph of the Economic Significance section is the place where human usage of antlers is currently being discussed.  If you have more notable and relevant information to add, that would be the section to add it.  In regards to the Economic Significance section, I agree that it might make sense to remove the discussion of Disease from the section, since it is discussed earlier, as you pointed out.  Add any of that info worth adding to the previous Disease section up in the Biology section, if it's not already there.  (It is weird that the last two sentences are not related to disease, but rather to hunting.)  However, I'm not sure it makes sense to split the Economic Significance section up into two subsection for hunting and car accidents, because more than just those two categories are discussed.  As it stands, the section covers: (1) deer meat, (2) use of other deer body parts, (3) deer in captivity (kinda - it seems to go a little off topic), (4) car accidents, (5) disease (but you are proposing to remove it), and (6) deer hunting.  Also, I'm just not sure how many subsections it can go down to.  But this section might benefit from some reorganization.  Perhaps hunting, deer meat and deer body parts could be a bit more combined, since they are all related to the killing of deer and using their byproducts.  And maybe moving the negative impacts of deer to the end - currently just about car accidents, but could also include diseases if you decide to keep it there.  I'm surprised there is no discussion of deer as pests eating plants that people are trying to grow.  So yeah, maybe there is a way to subdivide it into further subsection...  Anyhow, just some thoughts.  Happy editing! Cougroyalty (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Request: Should I protected this page, because last time there is IP Vandalism?

Aulivia Gabyriela REVI (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Requests for page protection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Stag (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Diet.
There's video evidence of deer eating fish & steak. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEGLsJlcSqs73.97.198.154 (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No indication it's a regular part of their diet, though, or that it's true of all species of deer. We already note that they occasionally eat non-plant-based food, and I think that's sufficient. Anaxial (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: JRN 101 News Literacy
— Assignment last updated by BrieBernier24 (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Range map
I boldly removed the range map for two reasons -


 * 1) The file shows "deer and kin" which is not specific - does this mean all animals called deer, Cervinae, Cervidae?
 * 2) The map has at least one error, as the deer family is represented naturally on Trinidad.

Source for #2: Perdikaris, Sophie et al. "From Icon of Empire to National Emblem: New Evidence for the Fallow Deer of Barbuda" University of Nebraska, 2018. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=global

Fredlesaltique (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No consensus to move per WP:COMMONNAME. (closed by non-admin page mover)  ❯❯❯  Raydann  (Talk)   23:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Deer → Cervidae – The term "deer" can be very inconsistent as popular as it is. First of all, there's a technicality by Americans who use the term "deer" to refer to cervids of the genus Odocoileus and exclude other cervids of the genera Cervus and Alces. Second, the moose is not normally referred to as a "deer" informally, so there's some viverrid-civet level of technicality behind what it's called. Third, the term "deer" isn't just used for members of the Cervidae, it can also be used for members of the Tragulidae ("mouse deer") and Moschidae ("musk deer"), both of which have "deer" in their common names (Antelope of the family Bovidae can also be called "deer" popularly, although that's more of a misconception). This 1990 source suggests that "deer" can be used for the Cervidae, Tragulidae, and Moschidae. Another from 2019 says that the Cervidae is called "true deer" instead of just "deer," but they still prioritize using "cervids." By moving the page to Cervidae, the page is more inclusive of all true members and excludes other ruminants that can also be called "deer." Although "true deer" is an option, it's not particularly common based on Google Scholar results. PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Deer is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME here. There being a few members of the family that have other common names, and a few other animals that have "deer" as part of their common name, doesn't change that; there are exceptions to the standard common name for practically any animal group. As an American, if I said "deer" without further qualification I would probably be referring to Odocoileus virginianus, the common species in my area, but that doesn't imply I think other cervids are not types of deer. And if Cervidae are the true deer, then moschids and tragulids are not deer, strictly speaking, and do not need to be covered on the "deer" article. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons already mentioned. The idea that Americans don't consider Cervus and Alces to be deer is not accurate in my perspective; just because Cervus canadensis doesn't have "deer" in its common name does not mean that it is excluded from the colloquial notion of the term. As Ornithopsis said, Americans commonly use "deer" for Odocoileus virginianus because in many parts of the country that is the only species which is common enough to enter into public speech on a regular basis. Just like how "rabbit" is applied to Sylvilagus floridanus 9 times out of 10 in the eastern part of the country, even though it's not the only species of rabbit in that region. A group's common name does not always align one-to-one with the names of its constituents. Another example is how "mongoose" is easily equated with Herpestidae (historically, colloquially, and by scientists), even though it includes the meerkat (which doesn't have "mongoose" in its common name) and excludes the Galidiinae. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Vital articles has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Mammals has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose - As a WP:VA this should not be moved. Add that on top of the WP:COMMONNAME argument which I wholeheartedly agree with. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons already given. I have a hard time believing that most Americans don't think that (say) mule deer are deer and there's also the complication that not all English speakers are American. Besides, what would we do with the redirect from "deer"? It would have to point here, surely? Which would defeat the object, since it's clearly in wider use than "cervids". I suppose it could just point to the existing dab page but that seems unnecessarily confusing and we have a link to that in the hatnote for anyone who was actually looking for it. Anaxial (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose This a good faith nom, but I think that "deer" is the firm common name for pretty much all members of this family. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, technically correct which is the best kind of correct. Deer could be a separate page for all different sort of deer as a diffusing category.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Like, a concept dab? Yeah, that makes sense. But that concept dab should be here, now, still. I have to oppose for the same reason Ortizesp is supporting. Red   Slash  21:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose per concerns listed above and WP:COMMONNAME. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

make a seperate article named Cervidae
I think we need to make a seperate article titled Cervidae. We might need to take some info out of this article and put it into this. 65.18.49.159 (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Since the two terms (in the sense they are used here) are synonymous, and we're not a dictionary that might need to include other senses of the word (e.g. musk 'deer') I don't see any need for this. Is there some reason why you think it would be worthwhile? Anaxial (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * yes I get it. Thank you. i changed my mind. 65.18.48.15 (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Photos are listed Clockwise not Counterclockwise
Images of a few members of the family Cervidae (counterclockwise from top left): the red deer (Cervus elaphus), sika deer (Cervus nippon), barasingha (Rucervus duvaucelii), caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus 2600:1017:B004:2971:9B26:7A79:5523:F205 (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Confusion between Deer and Cervidae
Firstly, I am aware of the request made in September 2023 to change this page from Deer to Cervidae, and have read a number of the opposition responses. I would like to reopen the discussion again, though I would suggest simply changing the title of the page rather than requesting another move. This is because I feel that currently the page can be confusing for readers, and I think we should be as clear as possible to avoid this.

My main concern with the page title being Deer is that the official Family name is Cervidae, not Deer. In my opinion the page for a Family should have the Family's official name as it's title, not a colloquial name. Also, on pages for other cervids it says Family - Cervidae under the taxonomy/scientific classification, but it then links to a page that initally appears to be about a group of animals within the Family, rather than the Family as a whole.

I know that Deer can be, and commonly is, used in place of Cervidae/cervids, but I do not think that this is a strong enough reason for the page title not to be changed. Changing the title would allow names to match across pages/redirects/etc., and would also better encompass the actual contents of the page itself, especially at a quick glance/initial look. Additionally, while almost all cervids are commonly known as deer, the Moose is definitely not, and there are many cervids that do not have deer in their names, such as munjacs. I feel that they would be more clearly encapsulated if the page was not titled Deer.

As for referring to cervids as deer within the contents of this page, I do not think that would necessarily have to change, as seen with the page List of cervids. At the beginning of this page it states: "Cervidae is a family of hoofed ruminant mammals in the order Artiodactyla. A member of this family is called a deer or a cervid." Thus all cervids on the page can be referred to as deer without need for further editing.

As I said at the beginning, this is not a request to move the page, simply a discussion. I am not an experienced enough editor to be confident submitting a request like that at all, nevermind for such an important page, but I do think it is something that should be addressed, and I would like to hear all of your thoughts on the matter. Thank you for reading my disorganised ramble. Alejandeer (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I would suggest simply changing the title of the page rather than requesting another move. I am afraid both are one at the same. To change the title, a move request needs to be started by following the steps in WP:RSPM. But before you do that, please take a look at WP:TITLE, specifically WP:COMMONNAME. You say "deer" is a colloquial name, but it is widely used in technical sources too, so it is perfectly acceptable to use it here too. Vpab15 (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Vpab15 I see, thank you for clarifying that, I'll have a look at those. As for "deer" being used in technical sources, I understand that it is used as an alternative name for cervidae/cervids, and that both are acceptable to use, I just think that if the family name is officially cervidae then the page for the family should reflect the official title, even if it is not the most commonly used one. However if it is better for general reader understanding to have the most common term used (i.e. "deer") as the title then please let me know. Alejandeer (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2024
"counterclockwise from top left": Species are shown clockwise, not counterclockwise. 90.224.157.111 (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Liu1126 (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)