Talk:Red deer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Archives

Archive 1 (General discussion/article splitting)


edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Red deer:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
    • Fix that table
    • Provide links to all the subspecies
    WikiProject Mammals (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
    WikiProject icon 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.
    B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
     Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
     
    WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland (Rated B-class)
    WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the biota of Great Britain and Ireland 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.
    B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
     ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
     

    Largest vs. Most Abundant[edit]

    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)

    Name Selection[edit]

    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)

    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)

    I am not arguing that the numbers alone should be determinative, however, if one looks at the numbers on the English language page, it states that 67.2% of English speakers are in the US and 5.8% are in Canada. 17% are in the UK. --Counsel 21:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

    I have my draft located at User:MONGO/Elk (Cervus elaphus), and of course the title of the article will change. I prefer to simply call the article by the title of Elk and make an Elk disambiguation page for other uses. I know this may not be the most scientific way to do it, but no doubt that the large majority of persons who want to learn about an Elk will be those that use the word most commonly, namely, N. Americans...at least as far as the English wiki is concerned. I ask that no editing of my draft be done until I move it to article space, which I won't do until we agree on a proper title. You'll see that my draft is basically the same as this article, minus the compartive discussions in as much detail and more species specific. It's okay that the articles are similar since as time goes on, they will probably end up looking very different. Once moved to article space, this article (red Deer) will also need to cease the long comparison and many of the images here of the Elk will have to go since we need more images of Red Deer actually. So lets get some ideas going or at least a poll of sorts as to what is the most proper name for the draft and related articles.--MONGO 21:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

    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)
    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)
    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)

    Now I am not planning on creating but the new Elk article and working on cleaning up that one and this one to make them species specific...if antone wants to try and develop the Cervus affinis artile (I think also known as the Maral or Himalayan/Tibetan Red Deer), they can, but I have almost zero information on this species/subspecies...but that would complete the list of these Cervids...we would them all...I think each article probably should list briefly each of the most similar species as part of the comparison and link to the Wiki articles on that species. But Red Deers do appear to have a reddish-brown neck.

    1. Cervus elaphus in Asia Minor and Europe, (saltatorial/cursorial, generalist)-Red Deer

    2. Cervus affinis in the eastern Himalayas, eastern Tibet and western China, (saltatorial, advanced, specialist)-Himalayan/Tibetan Red Deer (article name not yet determined)

    3. Cervus canadensis in central Asia and North America (cursorial, specialist)-Elk

    4. Cervus albirostris as the high elevation specialist. (cursorial/climbing, specialist)-Thorold's Deer

    5. Cervus sika from temperate zoned China (slatatorial primitive)-Sika Deer--MONGO 19:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

    Elk Disambiguation page[edit]

    Please see discussion at Talk:Elk. I have only just come across this proposed use of the American meaning of "elk" as the primary one, and I disagree. I especially object to the fact that it was done with no prior discussion with those intested in the elk articles, only on the red deer discussion page. I do not think it's right to take the name "elk" for the American species. WP:Disambig says that "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top" (emphasis added). I strongly dispute the notion that this covers the case of "elk". If you are going to move it, then you must discuss it with the elk-watchers, as well as the red-deer-watchers. I propose renaming the new page something like Elk (American) and reinstating the old Elk page. Gnusmas 08:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

    Discussion copied from Talk:Elk (let's keep it all in one place)[edit]

    The following box contains the text copied from Talk:Elk#Elk (disambiguation):

    I strongly object to the renaming of Elk as Elk (disambiguation) and what appears to be the beginnings of moving Red Deer to Elk (or is it intedned that Red Deer to Elk should remain as virtual duplicates?). Elk has several meanings, of which Cervus elaphus is just one. Red Deer is the internationally agreed name for this species. I will undo all MONGO's messing-up of this area, assuming anyone agrees with me. Gnusmas 08:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

    The decsion to divide the articles Elk and Red deer was decided recently due to new DNA evidence and long discussions on the article talk page at Red Deer. The new Elk article is fine, and I am going to be working on the Red Deer article to make it species specific.--MONGO 08:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    OK - maybe I was a bit hasty. I have now seen the stuff at Talk:Red Deer (which I have not been watching, because my interest is in elk (Alces alces) not Cervus elaphus. BUT: I still don't think it's right to take the name "elk" for the American species. In Europe elk is Alces alces. I suggest "American Elk" or "Canadian Elk" or "Elk (American)" as the name for the new article. WP:Disambig says that "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top" (emphasis added). I strongly dispute the notion that this covers the case of "elk". If you are going to move it, then you must discuss it with the elk-watchers, as well as the red-deer-watchers. Gnusmas 08:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry for any upsetting that has ocurred. I just went and fixed a pile of redirects so these articles should work out correctly now. About 300 million people know the Elk as what is the Elk in North America and eastern Asia. The word elk was a misnaming by early settlers from Europe to N. America since they thought the creature looked more like a eurpean elk or Moose as it is called in N. America...so the name has stuck here fro better or worse..screw up on the part of the early settlers I suppose. The Moose article is under that title, not Elk as it is called in Europe. I will do all I can to make each article as species specific as possible, but as time goes on and editors work on the individual articles, hopefully they will all look very different in their wording.--MONGO 08:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    I try not to let these things get to me, but, yes, it is a bit upsetting to find that the N. American usage of the word is suddenly considered the "primary" one! 300 million English speakers in N. America think of C. canadensis when they say "elk" - but what about the many more people in Europe and beyond (not all of whom speak English as their first language, but many of whom use the English Wikipedia) for whom "elk" is Alces alces? Calling the article about A. alces Moose makes sense because A. alces is clearly the primary meaning of "moose", and there's no argument about that. Nor is there any argument about the content of the new article and the amended Red Deer - they are looking good! The issue here is rather different: it is not "what is C. canadensis called in English?" but "What species is an elk?" - and I think you are simply wrong on the "primary meaning" issue. I will now shut up and go away, and see if anyone else has anything to say! Gnusmas 09:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    I'll try to keep this short, but know it will be long...sorry. I beleive that the sceintific way to title all plant and animal article titles is with their binominal names. However, if a common name exists, then that should be used. As pointed out above by several different editors, we should use either the common name or the binominal name. In N. America, almost all people call this animal an Elk. In Europe and elsewhere (unless they learned their English in N. America) ELK is what N. Americans call a Moose. The biggest problem we have here is that Moose are the same species, with only subspecies I believe (correct me if I am wrong), whereby the recent DNA evidence and the advice of Dr. Geist is that Red Deer and Elk, as well as three other closely related animals are all seperate species. I have switched most of the links that pointed to the wrong species in articles related to these animals so that they are species specific...or elk=elk, not red deer, etc. We can change the name of the new artilce, which is Elk to something else...maybe Elk/Wapiti...or Elk (Cervus canadensis). But N. American Elk won't work since this species is also in far eastern Asia. I am more than happy to make a switch and refix the Elk (disambiguation) page so that it redirects to the correct articles again. If we switch Elk to something else then we need to follow some sort of similar naming convention for all related Cervids. Let's get some kind of poll going here and rally everyone you know who is interested so we can nail this situation down...Also, we need a title for the "missing" species, Shou Cervus affinis as well as an article to go with it. We current have the Red Deer (Cervus elaphus), Elk (Cervus canadensis) articles and now need the Cervus affinis one...similar species already exist as articles...namely, Sika Deer (Cervus sika) and Thorold's Deer (Cervus albirostris). I fit was up to me, I would keep it the way I have changed it..but I am not going to fickle...lets get this finalized.--MONGO 09:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    In the spirit of Manual_of_Style:National_varieties_of_English, which states:
    Try to find words that are common to all.
    In choosing words or expressions (especially article titles) there may be value in selecting one that does not have multiple variant spellings if there are synonyms that are otherwise equally suitable and reasonable. In extreme cases of conflicting names, a contrived substitute (such as fixed-wing aircraft) is acceptable.
    I would like to suggest that we use the Wapiti name for the Cervus canadensis article. It seems to be very common in the scientific literature. A google search on wapiti cervus yields 78,300 hits compared to 194,000 for elk cervus, so wapiti is a relatively common common name, at least in the scientific literature. The first sentence of the wapiti article could then read:" The wapiti (Cervus canadensis), most commonly called elk in North America....". I hope this helps. Luigizanasi 16:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    Though I oppose the use of Wapiti as the title, it would be the easiest way to clean things up. If you look up a google search on Elk the hits are by far larger. Whatever name we can agree on is fine with me...if it's Wapiti, that's fine.--MONGO 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    I support "Wapiti" because its common use in scientific literature, it avoids the ambiguity and confusion engendered by "Elk" and it is succinct. I am mindful of our goal of appealing to all readers, not just those of North America. That said, I can certainly live with "Elk". --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    Does this help? (maybe not, but here goes anyway!) - Google searches produce results as follows: elk alces = 90K, elk cervus = 191K, moose alces = 174K, wapiti cervus = 77K. So in the scientific literature (let's not examine the biases inherent in doing it this way too closely!) the Cervus species is called elk twice as often as it's called wapiti, while the Alces species is called moose twice as often as it's called elk. Looked at the other way round, "elk" means Cervus twice as often as it means Alces. But the elk=Alces minority is still a large number. My argument is that because "elk" can mean two different species, and because neither overwhelms the other in the literature (or in the consciousness of Wikipedia users) it is inappropriate to use "elk" as the title for either of the two species - but it is quite OK to use "moose", even though it is not what one-third of us call the species, because "moose" cannot (well, hardly) mean anything else. By the same logic (and apoligies for taking so long to reach the point), wapiti seems a good name for the Cervus canadensis article. It's not what everyone calls it, but "wapiti" is unambiguous and clear. Gnusmas 09:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    I'll switch Elk to Wapiti, fix all the links and return Elk (disambiguation) to Elk in less than day...hopefully that will put an end to this.--MONGO 10:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

    I am opposed to using Wapiti as the primary name for this animal. It shows up in scientific liturature specifically to avoid confusion over this species, but it is not commonly used. I have lived in 9 different states in the US. I have worked with organizations which do conservation work for elk and I am also a hunter. I have NEVER heard this word spoken. I am truly not even sure how to pronounce it. Placing the article under this as the primary location will be a disservice to the 70+ percent of the English speaking world who live in North America.--Counsel 18:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

    The Europeans don't want to use Elk for the article title because when they say Elk, the mean a moose...which is an article that does use the N. American word as the title.--MONGO 19:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    Ooops. I started the move. Will revert self. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    No, be my guest....but how about the article title "Elk/Wapiti"?--MONGO 19:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    Wapiti is pronounced "Wah-p-t".......how about "Elk (Cervus canadensis)" for the title?
    Ok. I restored my edits. I'm confused though. I thought that a consensus existed for the Wapiti title. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    I think that we are not getting enough folks to chime in to create a consensus overall....the article Moose is about a creature that lives in Europe, N. America and Asia...yet uses the name as it is called in N. America as the article title...not "Elk" as Europeans actually call it. Red Deer and Elk are now two different creatures in terms of DNA...so why are we using a word that is not common language in N. America to describe an animal that is only found here and in far eastern Asia...namely "Wapitit"....as far as I am concerned, we either name the article Wapiti or we name it Elk (Cervus canadensis)....so though we probably don't need everyone to agree with this, we do need more people to add some spin to this and get feedback...I guess. How about "Large antlered critter that bugles" (just kidding).--MONGO 20:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    I think that Elk(Cervus canadensis) would be the way to go. This would allow the Elk disambig page to remain largely the same with a link to the article explaining that this the Elk found in North America.--Counsel 21:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    I agree...that should be both accurate, allow the continued use of the most common name used for the animal in question (in N. America) and cause the least disturbance. I'll attend to doing the switch within a day or less.--MONGO 06:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

    I think simplicity, the third animal should be called "Central Asian Red Deer", and I believe that the red deer (cervus elaphus) page needs to be cleaned up. The endangered animals chart poses a problem because the only two deer that are actually subspecies of "red deer" are the Barbary Stag and Corsican Red Deer. The Bactrian Deer, Kashmir Stag, MacNeill's Deer, Shou, Tibetan Red Deer, and Yarkand Deer all belong to the "Central Asian Red Deer" (Cervus Affinis).

    User:dlc_73 13:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

    Articles now renamed[edit]

    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)

    I have edited the Red Deer page to apply primarily to the European Red Deer. I moved the bugling thing to the Elk (Cervus canadensis) page because bugling is associated with Wapitis and American Elks. I would like to create a separate page for the Central Asian Red Deer (Cervus affinis). Also, most of the endangered red deer subspecies are actually Central Asian Red Deer. The only two Red Deer listed that belong to European Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) are the Barbary Stag and Corsican Red Deer. I think by having a third page for the Central Asian Red Deer will be helpful because the majority of the subspecies that are threatened belong to this species.

    User:dlc_73 13:03, 16 November 2006

    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)

    Also, remember, when titling the articles, the genus begins with a captial letter and the species is small case. If you create a Central Asian Red Deer (Cervis affinis) article...the spelling shown would be best I think.--MONGO 06:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

    See also[edit]

    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"?

    --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

    The reason why these animals are listed under "See also" is because they come from a similar ancestral lineage. The sika deer is a predecessor to the three above. I titled Subgenus "Cervus" (Red Deer, Central Asian Red Deer, and Wapiti subspecies) because although these are now three separate species, they are STILL closely related. They belong to genus "Cervus" and Subgenus "Cervus". Sika Deer belong to genus "Cervus" and Subgenus "Sika". Thorold's Deer belong to genus "Cervus" and Subgenus "Przewalskium". For more information, see Deer.--[[User:dlc_73) 17:30, 15 December 2006

    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)

    Red Deer Habitat Distribution Wrong![edit]

    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)

    Revised European Red Deer, Central Asian Red Deer, and Wapiti Distribution Map[edit]

    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)

    Towards FAC..[edit]

    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)

    I propose moving the article to British English, per WP:ENGVAR. --John 14:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

    Requested move[edit]

    Notice of this requested move has been placed on Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Una Smith (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

    Requested disambiguation[edit]

    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 (talkcontribs) 17:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

    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)

    Citation needed[edit]

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

    Add templates like {{fact}}, then. —innotata (TalkContribs) 18:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    Map[edit]

    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)

    And what does "renconstructed" mean? Deipnosophista (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

    Female[edit]

    Isn't a female called a doe? Komododragonfan16 (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

    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)
    OK. Now I see. Komodoboy16 11:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

    German article much better[edit]

    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)