Talk:Elk

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1:This article is not about the animal that some European speakers of English know as an Elk. Why? A1:An error was made by some explorers to North America a long time ago. They mistakenly believed that the animal they encountered was an Elch (anglized to elk), the Germanic common name for what is known in North American today as a moose. Since elk is the most commonly used name to descibe this species in its native North American range, the North American usage of the term is used in the article name. For the animal known in Europe as an elk, see moose. To further complicate matters, the Shoshone Indians and several other tribes of Native Americans referred to this species as wapiti, which is a rarely used alternative name for the animal. The key discussion that decided the title of this article is Talk:Red_deer#Name_Selection

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Elk 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.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 14, 2010.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 17, 2007 Peer review Reviewed June 19, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 28, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This  level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Mammals High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Agriculture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Canada: Saskatchewan Low‑importance Canada portal WikiProject Canada Canada notice board This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Saskatchewan. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 15 January 2021.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball (talk), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: Important.

On 20 January 2026, it was proposed that this article be moved to Wapiti. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

For the second time - my previous contribution from last time I was confused is somewhere in the pile - I ended up seriously confused by trying to look up something about the animal my dialect of English (UK) calls an "elk" only to land on this page instead. (I read a lot of the past debate last time, though I think I did give up on trying to read every single response).

The disambiguation at the top of the page is not adequate to prevent this, as if looking for particular information I do not read the article from beginning to end.

The addition of "North American" or some such clarifier to the title would be appropriate and is in line with usage elsewhere on Wikipedia: European Goldfinch, for instance. Typically, when more than one animal is called by the same common name across the English speaking world, some sort of clarifier is added to the common name. It is seriously weird that this article is kept as an insistent exception.

I would personally prefer the stronger measure of a disambiguation page (again, normal) but I realise there probably isn't any point in trying to advocate that at this point.

FloweringOctopus (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to quote myself from the last time you brought this up: I'm unsure how much more accomadating we could be than to have a note at the top of the article, three paragraphs concerning the naming and entymology, an edit notice if you attempt to edit the article, and a FAQ explicitly about this here on the talk page. A dab page is not needed as the majority of English speakers are familiar with the word "moose". Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A qualifier could be added in the title. As is done almost everywhere else on Wikipedia, including in situations where the qualifier is not used in any normal situation.

No-one in the UK talks of the European goldfinch - we always just say goldfinch - but almost every line in the article on that animal refers to the "European" goldfinch. And if you type goldfinch into the search, you end up on disambiguation. Fine. That's the reality of internationality. But the same principle of using the qualifier at least in the title should apply just as much when it's an American animal and an American name, and the difficulty is for non-American English speakers.

The reason I am still agitating this, is because it seems so out of line with what is done everywhere else on the project, and because of the way people are responding by insisting that there cannot be a problem, when I am actually experiencing one.

It may be to do with how different people read articles. If I want to look up the size or typical habitat of an animal, or whatever, I don't go to the talk page, or read the information on etymology, I go to the section on the subject I'm trying to look up. There are also situations in which I would read an article from beginning to end, but looking up particular information in that way is typically part of what an encyclopedia is for - and that is, of course, the situation in which in-article qualifications or explanations are not adequate, if there is nothing in the actual title to tell you that you need to read them to check you have the right article.

The issue is not the word "moose." The issue is that the name "elk" is used across the English speaking world to refer to at least two different cervids. I wasn't, as an English person, even aware that there was a second animal referred to as the "elk" until I got confused by this page the first time. As I say, there's nothing adequately indicating to me that I need to check what is being referred to (partly because Wikipedia mostly does qualify sensibly where names are ambiguous). Adding "North American" to the title (by analogy with "European Goldfinch"), would be a sufficient indicator that it might not be the same thing I refer to as the "elk".

I understood that Wikipedia aimed to be genuinely international and not to privilege any one dialect of English unreasonably. To refuse to qualify a common name which is used for more than one animal across the English speaking world in the title of the article where it is actually need for easy use, does not seem to me to respect that principle.

It may not be intended as such, but it feels like American dialect imperialism: the article title is to say what suits USA speakers, regardless of how many problems it causes others. Which principle does not seem to apply the other way around, when it's a European animal and the Americans want the qualifications because they use that common name for something else - so I do not even feel it's even-handed (i.e. it suits you not to have the qualifier, it suits us not to have the qualifier, everyone deals with the confusion. Rather, it suits USA speakers not to deal with the qualifier, we can put up with it; it suits USA speakers to have the qualifier, we can put up with it).

And I have never had this problem with any other article: either there is a disambiguation page, or there is enough qualification in the actual title of the article to make it clear that it is necessary to check the summaries for which page you are actually on.

FloweringOctopus (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to open a formal requested move if you wish to pursue this further. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 19:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the discussion at Talk:Red deer, it seems to me that there is no mention of the name of this animal in Asia. Honestly, it seems to me that Asian C. canadensis is never referred as "elk". I believe these animals would be referred as "deer" in their Asian range by anglophones.

The only usage of the term "elk" appears to be in NA. The IUCN Red List calls these deer "wapiti" while they call Alces alces "moose". I suggest we use the page "elk" as a disambiguation page for Alces alces and Cervus canadensis. That Northern Irish Historian (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the answer in the FAQ reads:

"An error was made by some explorers to North America a long time ago. They mistakenly believed that the animal they encountered was an Elch (anglized to elk), the Germanic common name for what is known in North American today as a moose. Since elk is the most commonly used name to descibe this species in its native North American range, the North American usage of the term is used in the article name. For the animal known in Europe as an elk, see moose. To further complicate matters, the Shoshone Indians and several other tribes of Native Americans referred to this species as wapiti, which is a rarely used alternative name for the animal. The key discussion that decided the title of this article is Talk:Red_deer#Name_Selection"

There is nothing about it's name in Asia in this answer. The Asian Cervus canadensis articles commonly refer it as "wapiti". That Northern Irish Historian (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dreading watching this again. No. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asia is being excluded. That Northern Irish Historian (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't discount all of the previous discussions. Expand the given explanations to include Asia. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those discussions ended like 20 years ago. That Northern Irish Historian (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the one just above from last year. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that user opened a formal requested move. That Northern Irish Historian (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All I said was "previous discussions". - UtherSRG (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You suggested to expand the discussions. That Northern Irish Historian (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I meant update the FAQ to include info on Asia. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]