Talk:Red deer

message: The word "largest" is used many times in this article.  Are some of these instances better put as "most abundant" or are they actually physically largest?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.3.128.198 (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest vs. Most Abundant 

message: As the split happens, we should keep in mind that we are trying to create a useful tool.  It is common for English speakers to dig in their heels to support their own particular vernacular.  We should be mindful that there are around 400 million english speakers who call this animal an Elk.  According to the Wiki article on English almost 75% of English speakers live in Canada and the US.  We should select titles that make wikipedia as useful as possible.--Counsel 20:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I have in mind is an article titled Red Deer and one with the title of Elk...the Elk article will also have a link to a dismabiguation page as a part of other uses for the word...such as Elk...the European Moose, etc.--MONGO 06:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is what I suggested as well. But also see some of the talk comments here that suggest that many speakers of North American English do not know that the original meaning of Elk is what they call a Moose, and that what they call an Elk is either a close relative or the same species as the Red Deer. One suspects that similar confusions exist for Europeans who speak English as a First or second language (remember that many readers of English Wikipedia are people for whom English is not their first language -- I doubt 75% of English speakers speak are North American, it depends how many have learnt a NA dialect as a second language). We should help to clear up these confusions. Billlion 09:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on a draft in my userspace...bascially the same article as this one, but minus the details about red Deer or the long comparison sections. The draft will have a link to a disambiguation page. I am trying to make it clear in my introduction that Elk is the word used by persons outside N. America to describe a Moose. Once I get the draft done, I'll move it to article space and we can work on fixing this one to be species specific and discuss the behavioral and other characteristics of the Red Deer alone.--MONGO 09:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Above, the draft paper by Geist refers to the species as European Red Deer (Cervus Elaphus), Himalayan/Tibetan Red Deer (Cervus Affinis), East Asian Red Deer/Wapiti (Cervus Canadensis).   Those seem to me to be too long for our article titles. Moreover, many North Americans readers will object to  "East Asian Red Deer" as the title for Cervus Canadensis article. Europeans may object to "European Red Deer" for Cervus Elaphus preferring "Red Deer" despite its ambiguity. I think that the binomial names should be used as the article titles. If there ever were a case where the common names engender confusion, this is one. In my opinion, the common names should be redirects or disambiguation pages. "Elk" is already a disambiguation page and need only be edited slightly. In making this suggestion, I am mindful of Billlion's point (above) that it is unlikely that a large majority of our readers are North American. Within each article, less potential for confusion exists. It is hard to argue that the common local name should not be used; "Elk" is more readable than C. Canadensis. However, the two other cervid species and Alces alces should be referred to by their binomial names to avoid confusion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Good job. However, I believe the article should mention the realtionship with the Red deer and the fact that the two have been considered the same species for a long time right up front. Luigizanasi 16:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job Mongo.  There are still a few "Red Deer" statements in there that may be confusing, but that is small stuff.  Thanks--Counsel 18:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I figure I have some spelling errors and other things and of course, the article will at some point look very different as editors add and or subtract info. I agree that we need to make it clear that the animals are all almost the same, but what fasinated me was the fact that the DNA evidence showed that the elk is more closely related to the Sika Deer than to the Red Deer, even though the Red Deer looks a lot more like the elk than does the Sika deer.--MONGO 19:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Selection 

message: We now have this article (Red Deer), the article about the N. American/east Asian "Elk" or "Wapiti" at Elk (Cervus canadensis)...so ensure any images are correct to the articles. Anyone interested in going into Commons and sorting out the Red Deer and Elk (Cervus canadensis) images...we need a proper link on the Elk (Cervus canadensis) artilce if a new page with only images of that species is created. I think I have all the links adjusted, and if I;ve made a mess, please let me know. Thanks.--MONGO 10:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a great idea to create a third article...is this other animal also know as a maral or somethkng like that. I appreciate continued efforts to ensure the articles all discuss the particualr animal in specifics, and indeed, the Red Deer don't bugle, they roar, if I'm not mistaken....the central asian species apparently has a combined roar-bugle vocalization.--MONGO 06:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Good work MONGO. Is it a good time to archive (some of) the discussion above? Billlion 09:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done...happy editing!--MONGO 10:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles now renamed 

message: I removed the following items from the "See also" section. Please see WP:GTL, "The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article." If I'm not mistaken, these links are present. Is there a good reason to repeat them in "See also"?
* East European red deer - a subspecies of European Red Deer
* Central Asian Red Deer
* Wapiti - East Asian/North American Red Deer
* Sika Deer
--Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that they come from a similar ancestral image. The question is whether listing the above items in a "See also" section is required. My reading of the guideline, WP:GTL, suggests that it is not, because they are wikilinked in the article. That is why I removed the "See also" items a couple of weeks ago. (I fixed the guideline wikilink, by the way.) If the article is better with the items listed, I don't object to ignoring the guideline. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: The map shown at the top of the page is inconsistent with the current adaptation of Red Deer as three separate species.  If this article is solely about the European Red Deer the colored distributon should only be Europe, North Africa, and Turkey.  The red areas of Eastern Asia correspond to the Wapiti's (Cervus canadensis) distribution and the southern end corresponds to MacNeill's Deer, a Central Asian Red Deer (Cervus affinis).
User:dlc_73 13:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Red Deer Habitat Distribution Wrong!

message: Mongo, based on the three species classification of red deer, I found a range map from Whitehead's Encyclopedia of Deer. It was based on the two species classification of Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) and Wapiti (Cervus canadensis)(including MacNeill's Deer with Wapiti).  It does, however, identify all subspecies and shows each subspecies range in Europe, Asia, and North America.  From this map, I have been able to identify the overall range of each three species.  The European Red deer's range is on top of page 226 of Whitehead's Encyclopedia should be used in Wikipedia. I can email these in jpg or pdf format. Please let me know, you have left me messages before.  Feel free to email me.
User:dlc_73 13:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised European Red Deer, Central Asian Red Deer, and Wapiti Distribution Map

message: Actually this article is pretty well organized and shouldn't take a huge amount of work to FAC...cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 10:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose moving the article to British English, per WP:ENGVAR. --John 14:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Towards FAC..

message: *Elk → Elk (Cervus canadensis) and Elk (disambiguation) → Elk - (Discuss )
Notice of this requested move has been placed on Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Una Smith (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: I suggest that a search for Red Deer (with and without coaptalizations) go through disambiguation. This would ensure that people searching for Red Deer (city) do not get sent to Red Deer (animal) and think there is no article on the city. I am interested in the animal, but surely a city of 100,000 generates a lot of interest, too. I will research this further. To assist me, is there any way of seeing the number of hits on each related web page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynercook (talk • contribs) 17:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Red deer the animal is surely by far the dominant meaning.  There is already a hatnote directing other users to the town and to the dab, and I think this covers the circumstances perfectly well.  There is a page that counts hits (http://stats.grok.se), and we can also look at "what links here" – in fact both show many more for the animal.  However, such stats do need to be used with caution – we can't tell, for example, how many people looking at Red Deer, Alberta got there directly by typing the ", Alberta".  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has good guidance on this situation.  Richard New Forest (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested disambiguation

message: This article need some citations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.86.250.100 (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: I don't have the know-how to do this, but would someone please update the map to include the Scottish west coast islands - red deer are found in most of them. Dougiebeck (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Isn't a female called a doe? Komododragonfan16 (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In most usage "does" are the females of medium-sized species such as fallow deer; the larger red deer females are normally "hinds", and other larger species often "cows".  See Deer#Terminology.  Richard New Forest (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Now I see. Komodoboy16 11:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female 

message: The Deutsch article is much better at giving the biology and human problem interactions. It is also better referenced than the English one. If someone has a love for the red deer, they could usefully add that info here. This article is very UK focused, and the 2 together would give a more international perspective.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.22.241.8 (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  German article much better 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Red 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.farmerparrs.com/deer.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tallgrass.org/elks.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/artio/irishelk.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://arts.anu.edu.au/grovco/Pitra%20deer.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worlddeer.org/reddeer.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.priroda.net/schoolclub/rock.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have removed the Cervus canadensis subspecies from the list in the taxobox. I'm leery of just deleting them without permission, so I copied them to here:
*C. e. alashanicus
*C. e. canadensis
*C. e. hanglu
*C. e. kansuensis
*C. e. macneilli
*C. e. nannodes
*C. e. wallichii
*C. e. xanthopygus
2601:441:4102:9010:9D6C:4BCD:C783:ED99 (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove C. canadensis subspecies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Red 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923183116/http://www.bds.org.uk/c2/uploads/red%20deer.pdf to http://www.bds.org.uk/c2/uploads/red%20deer.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) 18:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Red 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215121936/http://www.wapiti.net/nutrition.cfm to 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) 15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion 

message: The map does not include many areas where the animal has been introduced according to  the text.  Should these areas be indicated?  Why / why not? Kdammers (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  range