Talk:Elk/Archive 4

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051111051611/http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu:80/mammal/artio/irishelk.html to http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/artio/irishelk.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/upload/YS13(3).pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101205163018/http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_dis_spec/cattle/downloads/cattle-bison.pdf to http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_dis_spec/cattle/downloads/cattle-bison.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.roanoke.com/outdoors/billcochran/wb/6627
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110221130714/http://www.chea-elks.org:80/name.html to http://www.chea-elks.org/name.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215121936/http://www.wapiti.net:80/nutrition.cfm to http://www.wapiti.net/nutrition.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Archiving issues
Was just randomly looking at some old discussions here and found that the archive bot has been adding recent discussions to achive 2, when discussions as old as 2012 are already in archive 3. As one-click archiving has become more and more common, and is probably a better fit for this page, I have removed the bot directions and added configuration for one click with archive basics. I did not move the older content to the newer archive but did place a pointer at archive 3. Copying large swaths of text is a pain on a tablet, or on mine anyway, but if anyone wants to clean that up and then remove the pointer be my guest. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Graham 87 06:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Elk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/artio/irishelk.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://biology.usgs.gov/s%2Bt/SNT/noframe/sw159.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608213710/http://www.uwsp.edu/wildlife/elk/biology.htm to http://www.uwsp.edu/wildlife/elk/biology.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/upload/YS13%283%29.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://biology.usgs.gov/s%2Bt/noframe/c273.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wapiti.net/nutrition.cfm

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) 04:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Elk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111225055723/http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/818/0 to http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/818/0
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/upload/YS13(3).pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015231800/http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/41785/all to http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/41785/all

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) 17:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140629063422/http://archanth.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/groves_cervus2005.pdf to http://archanth.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/groves_cervus2005.pdf

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) 14:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Shelby.a14 (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My goodness the gauntlet one must go through to get to that article. There must be an easier access source.--MONGO (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

"immune" to bear attacks?
I tagged this as dubious. However, I was able to find the source online and it does say that bears are never successful in taking down an adult male elk. Source seems pretty reliable, but I would still contend that "immune" is not the correct word to use. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Took out spurious addition of events outside the scope of this article and adjusted latest wording to reflect the data.--MONGO (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * looks good. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

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

I reviewed changes made up to the edit at 19:15, December 1, 2020 and restored those changes. After that, one edit orphaned a reference that was restored by a bot.--MONGO (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I already stated, I removed several bits of uncited information. In addition I removed lesser quality sources like "Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation" and "Bowhunting.org" and replaced them with peer reviewed articles, which are shockingly scarce in this FA. I also replaced "Elk of North America, Ecology and Management", since no page numbers are given and I'm unable to access it. Please let me continue. LittleJerry (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A wide range of refs are important and you're overusing Geist.--MONGO (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have access to the 2002 book? If not then while most replace it since there are no pages given. Also you removed my cites in predation which are not to Geist. LittleJerry (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edit removed the following detail:

''The elk is a large animal of the ungulate order Artiodactyla, possessing an even number of toes on each foot, similar to those of camels, goats and cattle. It is a ruminant species, with a four-chambered stomach, and feeds on grasses, plants, leaves and bark. During the summer, elk eat almost constantly, consuming between 4 and 7 kg of vegetation daily. In North America, males are called bulls, and females are called cows. In Asia, stag and hind, respectively, are sometimes used instead.''
 * If the issue with that was the reference a better one could be used maybe?--MONGO (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it doesn't belong there. It discusses diet and classification in a section that is supposed to be on Physical characteristics. LittleJerry (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The elk is a large animal of the ungulate order Artiodactyla, possessing an even number of toes on each foot, similar to those of camels, goats and cattle....is not about physical characteristics?--MONGO (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In a sea of non-physical characteristics. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ...NO this really wasn't discussed at talk. Seems by "talk" you mean its your way or the highway attitude you've been displaying.--MONGO (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. God forbid someone removes uncited information and low quality sources (including deadlinks) in a FA! LittleJerry (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And adds spelling errors and removes information that has relevance. Is English not your primary language? Start using edit summaries and put your arrogance in check and act collaboratively. I expect you to start discussing your changes use edit summaries and cease being a bull in the china shop.--MONGO (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your first edit that you claim "improved" the article...what the fuck was removing this for? Add a reference maybe? This article already had an FAC...so if the article sucks so bad take it to FAR. I'd accept that, but your my way or the highway approach aint going to continue.--MONGO (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I already explained to you why I removed that. "Because it doesn't belong there. It discusses diet and classification in a section that is supposed to be on Physical characteristics" and the source is low quality and is a deadlink. I don't need to justify all my edits to you especially if you're going to use uncivil language. LittleJerry (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And BTW I did use the edit summaries like here, here, here and here. Clearly in your rage you weren't paying attention. LittleJerry (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Dupcite
when you have two sentences supported by the same cite. You don't have to use the cite twice in a row. See REPCITE LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You can try and combine the sentences into one but since specific potentially questionable data is mentioned in each sentence, each needs a direct citation supporting it. REPCITE is not policy...its not even a guideline, but repairing dead links is part of our recommended guidelines. Whether you use your username or an IP, please do not simply remove material that should be updated with new and recited. You took an already weak section and rather than repair it, you just dumped half of it. This is not the first time you have done this to this article, so I'm inclined to do what I can to prevent you from effecting further changes that are detrimental.--MONGO (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The link wasn't dead. It moved to the main National Elk Refuge. When I looked up the elk article, it did not support the text. I'm not obligated to replace it. LittleJerry (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was able to update the data and find a RS in 5 minutes.--MONGO (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Distribution map
At the moment, it shows the current and former native ranges of the elk. This is great and informative. But would it be possible to add a third layer to show introduced ranges? The articles mentions the Appalachians, Ontario, and Argentina, and it would be interesting to see this displayed visually. Idk how to do it, but maybe someone more skilled could take a shot? Blob401 (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * First off, great idea. Secondly, elk have been REintroduced to the Appalachians and Ontario, not introduced. They've only been introduced to New Zealand and Argentina. But I agree. Ddum5347 (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Name
Shouldn't the article be renamed "Canadian Deer" as technically calling the animal "elk" is an error even if it is one commonly used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isenhand (talk • contribs)
 * No. Ddum5347 (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, hard no. Probably the worst solution possible is to make up a novel new name that nobody uses.See Talk:Elk/FAQ. It would also be nice if you bothered to learn how to use a talk page and how to sign your posts. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

not the largest
you literally said "it is often confused with the larger moose". THE MOOSE IS FROM CERVIDAE!!! THE DEER FAMILY!!!! 206.84.143.69 (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

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


 * They're clearly not the largest, since the page says that elk average 0.75 meters at the shoulder. I tried to correct it from the source, but that's what the source says. At almost 3 meters long, that ranks elk as the largest daschunds in the world, not the largest ungulates. --Rvanarsdale (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There's quite clearly a range of heights, from .75 meter to 1.5 meter. That's about 5 feet at the shoulder, not the top of the head, for a large bull, which would have a length at the top end of the range. Adult Roosevelt bulls are actually quite impressive in person, but much smaller than, for example, an adult bull Alaska moose. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Doesn't elk meat come from elk? Just asking. Dger (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It sure does, and the image is in the section that discusses the meat, so I don't see the point of this suggestion. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Article name
Considering that elk is a common name for both Cervus canadensis and Alces alces wouldn't it make more sense for the articles for both these species to use their alternative names? Having this article be named elk is confusing. It would make more sense to have instead of the current "Moose" and "Elk" to have "Moose" and "Wapiti" and to then move "Elk (disambiguation)" to "Elk". -- PaleoMatt (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the various previous discussions of this in the archives, in particular this exact idea has been previously rejected. Also see the FAQ at the top of this page, and the edit notice seen when editing the article. Iff you believe you can overcome those objections with some new argument, I'd suggest a formal requested move for both articles. Keep in mind WP:COMMONNAME as well as WP:ENGVAR when researching those are going to be the highest hurdles you would need to overcome if this proposal is to have any chance of success. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Pop by US state
Hello I think we should keep. These areas are larger than some countries and WP:NOTPAPER. Invasive Spices (talk) 27 April 2022 (UTC)

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


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