Talk:Giant panda

Cubs and Bamboo Diet

I watched and episode of 'Planet Earth' just hours ago and they had a section on pandas. They stated that pandas do live on a diet consisting of 99% bamboo and 1% of their own poop. Regarding comments below this is because they are filling an ecological niche and though they are in the Order Carnivora they are a rare exception that do not eat meat aside from occasional insects, eggs, or fish presented to them. Much of the information regarding these questions can be learned off of wikipedia on other pages on the carnivores and bears (which are well cited.) As to the cubs they generally give birth to one cub and on the rare occasion they give birth to. The remark "how can they decide which is stronger" as stated on this page is obviously nonsense. A reader or editor not knowing)

Additionally I do believe it should be flagged as citation needed and the mountain episode of planet earth is where it can be found. 96.255.135.55 (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, this page is protected so I suppose I will need to come up with a new id and wait until I have the credibility needed to edit semi-protected pages or one of you lovely editors can do it. Cheers 96.255.135.55 (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC) ghghghgh they live in america — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.202.243.46 (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

New edit

The Giant Panda is an omnivore.--184.12.78.230 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A section says:-

The ROC government's official said, the import of pandas was under the terms of "species of traditional herbal medicine"

This statement is dubious. Is it saying that the ROC government is treating the pandas as traditional medicine and importing them under these terms? Or is it saying the government is just simply using similar importing terms as traditional medicine? If that's latter is the case, why is that? I removed this statement because more information needs to be given as it currently doesn't make sense. The reference in the footnote is broken so there is no way for me to verify it.--pyl (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence. I believe the editor who wrote it must have been trying to say something about how the Taiwan government was justifying the acceptance of the pandas when the previous administration had refused them as being illegal due to prohibitions against endangered species being given as international gifts.

I think it makes sense to clarify the circumstances. For example, why specifically Chen had objected, how the decision to accept was made by a newly elected administration, how that new administration justified the action, and how China viewed the transfer.

Specifically regarding Taiwan's justification, I found out something I hadn't known before: eTaiwannews.com had this to day on 2008-12-24 07:39 PM (it's cached in google right now, but who knows for how long)

Taiwan insists panda trip was not domestic affair for China

TAIPEI (Taiwan News) – The trip by two pandas to Taiwan was not the domestic transaction for China, the Mainland Affairs Council said Wednesday.

Earlier in the week, Tuesday’s delivery of the endangered animals from Chengdu in China to the Taipei Zoo was described as an example of internal or domestic trade by the secretariat of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, known as CITES. The organization said such a domestic transaction meant that the parties involved were not required to file a report.

However, MAC chairwoman Lai Shin-yuan said Wednesday the panda trip was obviously not domestic, since a customs declaration was filed, and the animals had to undergo a checkup before being taken off their flight at Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport.

The Taipei Times covered it but not as clearly: "PANDA DIPLOMACY: Use of ‘domestic’ by CITES secretariat was wrong: MAC". Readin (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with your edit. I think you have clarified the situation quiet well.--pyl (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original post in this section ("New edit"), the article describes the giant panda's behavior in terms equating to an omnivore but then asserts that the animal is a herbivore or a carnivore. Indeed the giant panda's normal diet is 99 percent bamboo, but, as the article says, the giant panda can and will eat meat. Ergo, this animal is an omnivore. The article should say so, categorically, and refrain from describing the behavior of an omnivore whilst obviating the term omnivore and classifying the animal as otherwise. Rammer (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Panda habitat: conservation

I think they need to talk more about the problems with panda conservation:

Problems include fragmentation of the pandas’ habitat, habitat destruction, and poaching. China has set laws to protect these places but they are still being logged and destroyed. Minshan Mountains, for example, has about ½ the remaining of the panda population within its forests, but also has 180,000 people (Kramer).

Kramer, James. "Pandas and Habitat Destruction ." WWF :World Wildlife Fund. 7 Mar. 2009 . 11 Mar.

2009 <http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/endangered_species_list/giant_panda/

where_panda_lives_habitat/#Where>.

15:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajmaster77 (talk • contribs)

Cat?

I noticed that the article says that the Panda "is a cat native to central-western and southwestern China.[2]" Should someone double check this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jed.tsai (talk • contribs) 22:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say that anywhere in the article. I checked the entire article for every time the letters "cat" occur in that order and there's nothing about a panda being a cat. OlYeller^Talktome 03:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe someone corrected it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.235.103 (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes the correction was made by me because i know for a fact that a panda is not what so ever related to a cat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rj doodles (talk • contribs) 22:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Size of newborn cub

I have added a different description/ref for the size of the newborn cub. The comparison to a "stick of butter" may not be obvious to everyone. In the UK, for example, butter generally comes in 250g (8oz) blocks rather than 4oz sticks. TheSmuel (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Diet

The article says:

the Giant Panda has a diet which is 99% bamboo

It's extremely unlikely to be exactly 99%.. anyone has more precise statistics? 93.33.245.35 (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine any number being accurate accross a large population. There's got to be a fair bit of variation. Perhaps in place of "99%" it would be appropriate to say, simply, "mostly."

the Giant Panda has a diet which is mostly bamboo

or

the Giant Panda has a diet which consists mostly of bamboo Bppubjr (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The OP has a very valid point, however: To use e.g. "99 %" to imply "almost exclusively" is OK in speech, but should not be abused in an encyclopedia. Here numbers should have their literal meaning. 94.220.249.70 (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Almost exclusively" or "... a diet dominated by bamboo" is much better, both due to the considerations above, and because I've a hard time seeing the point in listing a number of other food-types if they only constitute a measly 1%. If no-one objects, I'll make the change. EthicsGradient (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Pandas eat beetles or small insects when not bamboo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rj doodles (talk • contribs) 22:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Any concerns about the Panda's supposed "violation" of natural bear behaviour because it is a herbivore are factually incorrect. Panda's aren't bears in the first place and obviously their diet cannot be compared with that of bears and no hypothesis of dietary preference can be made by comparing a Panda with a member of the Ursus Genus.59.99.219.68 (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Ursidae is bear, giant panda is in Ursidae, it's a bear, not Ursus Editor abcdef (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

See the discussion supra in the section "New edit" (about why the animal is an omnivore). That issue still needs to be addressed. Rammer (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Liquid hydrogen?

Really, liquid hydrogen? Liquid nitrogen is much more common for cryopreservation, cheaper, not such an explosion risk - did they really use liquid hydrogen? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

1 ref says H2 the other says N2 so I'm changing it to N2 coz I believe H2 is an error. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Cat-like slit pupils

Rita Putatunda may have authored a Buzzle article making the claim that pandas possess vertical slits pupils, but the close-up photograph of the seven month old panda clearly shows a round pupil -- could we look for further information to substantiate her claim? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

PS - I fear that most internet sources will be tainted with information gleaned from this article, and thus should be invalid sources of substantiation. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Cats' pupils can also be round when fully dilated, so this claim about giant panda eyes are not necessarily false. its hard to tell with only a photograph. But yes, it would be better if a reliable source is found. --Tesscass (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That claim is one that I would not have expected. However, there are several reliable sources that also make that claim. The IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan for Bears makes that exact claim - that the giant panda possesses slit pupils. The reference is: Servheen, Christopher; Herrero, Stephen; and Peyton, Bernard. Bears: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. Gland, Scotland: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN); 1999. The two authors of the giant panda section of the IUCN report both appear to be qualified wildlife biologists with long, established careers - Donald G. Reid (here at http://programs.wcs.org/canadaarchive/AboutUs/OurStaff/DonaldReid.aspx) and Jien Gong (http://catttrax3.blogspot.com/2012/05/old-friends-gong-jien-wildlife.html). This source is written by experts in the field and is almost certainly not derived from Rita Putatunda's (or any other) webpage. This source is available online at: https://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/species/publications/species_actions_plans/ See page 242, which states: "The giant panda's pupils are vertical slits, as in cats, suggesting that the eye may be adapted for nocturnal vision."

There is also a published book (part of a multivolume set seen here at http://www.amazon.com/Exploring-Mammals-Marshall-Cavendish/dp/0761477195) that makes this same claim: Exploring Mammals, Volume 3. Tarrytown: Marshall Cavendish Corporation; 2007. See page 1012 here: http://books.google.com/books?id=j7ZsAxdLbaIC&pg=PA1012&lpg=PA1012&dq=giant+panda+pupil&source=bl&ots=_ph5xCjPlq&sig=hAlW24LIZbPmvoR1OV4fItZ8tJo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0Wo2U-qID5SssATrsYDQCg&ved=0CG8Q6AEwDQ#v=onepage&q=giant%20panda%20pupil&f=false. This source is written corporately (by a team of consultants and editors, rather than by authors listed on the cover) which I usually don't like. However, the 4 consultants (see page 1 at this link http://books.google.com/books?id=j7ZsAxdLbaIC&pg=PA1012&lpg=PA1012&dq=giant+panda+pupil&source=bl&ots=_ph5xCjPlq&sig=hAlW24LIZbPmvoR1OV4fItZ8tJo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0Wo2U-qID5SssATrsYDQCg&ved=0CG8Q6AEwDQ#v=onepage&q=giant%20panda%20pupil&f=false) appear all to be qualified scientists as well.

The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums website page on the giant panda also makes the same claim, here at: http://www.waza.org/en/zoo/visit-the-zoo/bears-1254385523/ailuropoda-melanoleuca

The Toronto Zoo has a "Giant Panda Facts" infosheet at http://www.torontozoo.com/pandas/pdfs/FINAL%20Toronto%20Zoo%20Giant%20Panda%20Media%20Kit%20-%20Bios%20&%20Facts.pdf?b

These sources all appear to be reliable sources written by experts in the field. It would stretch credibility greatly to believe that they are all taken from Putatunda's (or another amateur's) webpage or other unreliable sources.

72.80.193.207 (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Annoying other pandas?

Seems like the phrase 'fucking other pandas' in the behaviour section is out of place for an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.208.197 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it was anonymous vandalism, I've just reverted it. Thanks.--Microcell2009 (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Preventing extinction

This month, there has been a significant amount of media coverage of the suggestion that it is a waste of time, money and effort to prevent them becoming extinct, which is what would happen if not for human intervention. What are the arguments for keeping them in captivity and encouraging them to breed? Do zoos that have Pandas gain far more visitors as a result? Can valuable products be made from Pandas? Is there a productive reason for going to great efforts to increase their numbers (which is a slow and difficult process), or is it all just because many people think they look cute? Wiki editor 6 (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

With the best will in the world, pandas are going extinct in the wild, and nothing will prevent that. Nobody with any kind of training in ecology imagines otherwise, though for fundraising reasons the WWF won't say as much publicly. I've added some text about this, quoting Chris Packham (a noted conservationist as well as photographer) and David Bellamy (an ecologist and TV presenter). Why do people want to save them? Yes, largely because they're cute. It's easy to sell tickets to zoos with panda bears, and zoos with breeding programmes can sniff about for research funds and grants. Charities want them because they're prettier than newts or liverworts, and politicians like them for the same reason they like babies and war heroes: they make good television. But can pandas actually be saved in the wild? Almost certainly not. There's not enough land and the wild population is so small the chances of successful breeding is virtually nil. There will doubtless be many who'll argue I'm being unduly negative here, or hard on the people doing the fundraising and captive breeding: but how many of those people are biologists or ecologists? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe cute is enough. "Cuteness" is a marketable product in and of itself. "It's easy to sell tickets to zoos with panda bears", right? So the pandas help keep the zoos open and profitable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.178.119 (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC) wow dude calm down! Like no need to swear...i hold peace to the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rj doodles (talk • contribs) 22:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Citations

Many of the citations within this article, although the information appears correct, are not valid enough to be used. More journal articles and less random websites should be used to ensure accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.101.74 (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think its necessary to include the aposing argument to Chris Packams to make it fair-

"However, Dr Mark Wright, a conservation science adviser for WWF described Mr Packham’s comments as “daft” and “irresponsible”.

He said: “Pandas have adapted to where they live. They live in the mountains where there is plenty of the bamboo they want to eat.

“It’s like saying the blue whale is in an evolutional cul-de-sac because it lives in the ocean.”

Dr Wright added that pandas face extinction due to poaching and humans moving into their habitat, and that if left alone they would not be under threat." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.11.105 (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Singapore

Can someone please add the report about two pandas for Singapore soon. A Google search will bring up a lot of articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.60.232 (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate to cover it when the giant pandas have actually arrived Singapore. Otherwise such information looks too trivial IMO. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The pandas for Australia have not arrived but they are on the article. The Singapore pandas are very significant in the scope of pandas at foreign zoos. 76.69.60.232 (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Politically speaking, you may include it in Panda diplomacy. I think the coverage of proposed panda loans should be hidden temporarily. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well pandas are just wonderful cute animals that People that love.............I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magician26 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC) The Giant Panda is not a cranavor it is a omnivor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.77.108 (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Pop culture

I realize it's just my opinion, but I think that arbitrarily omitting a section (or subsection) on pandas in popular culture is a mistake. They clearly have been featured broadly in the media.

When I noticed that this section was missing, I assumed that it was an oversight. I added a section (actually a subsection of the Media section), including a mention of Kung Fu Panda. It was quickly reverted, but as I said, I think this is a poor choice. For comparison, there's a mention of Finding Nemo in the clownfish article. EJSawyer (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Pop culture is trivia, and not, generally, of interest on a biology page. The appropriate edit would be to put the info on movie's article, linking to this one. There's nothing about that fact that is about the animal - it's about the character and the movie. The section on clownfish should be removed, too. It's just not on my regular patrol. thanks for pointing it out, I'll go remove it now. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

While I could see a section of the use of pandas as a symbol - for example, but the WWF. While the portrayal of pandas in movies (in general) might be worth mentioning, if references to an appropriate secondary source, the portrayal of pandas in any one film is trivia, and isn't appropriate for the article. Guettarda (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Food for thought: what about splitting the difference, and creating a second page about Pandas in Popular Culture? This page could link to it (in either "Pandas in Media" or "See also"), which would keep it pure, yet also allow the cross-reference info to be available. I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure there's precedent. EJSawyer (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Killer Whales in popular culture and Giant squid in popular culture are examples of precedent. I would expect that comparable levels of content could be gathered for pandas. EJSawyer (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, splitting the article along those lines is a good thing. Gorillas in popular culture, too. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Giant Panda/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ucucha 18:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The article has some good information, but there are numerous problems, some minor and some major, a sample of which I have listed below.

• Substantial overlinking: "China" is linked twice in the lead, and arguably doesn't need to be linked at all; what is the point of linking "mountain", "silver", "gold", or "farming"?
• Some points under "Appearance" are not part of appearance at all; the section may be better called "Description".
• "Though generally alone, each adult has a defined territory"—why the "though"?
• "After mating, the male leaves the female alone to raise the cub."—please cite.
• "Only a few bamboo species are widespread at the high altitudes pandas now inhabit. Bamboo leaves contain the highest protein levels; stems have less."—please cite.
• "The Giant Panda's closest ursine relative is the Spectacled Bear of South America."—this is uncited, and quite possibly false; for example, doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2009.10.033 and doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2007.10.019 find that the giant panda is sister to all other bears. The latter paper says that some studies have also found a relationship between the panda and the spectacled bear, but this doesn't seem to be the current consensus.
• The article is missing any information on the fossil antecedents of this species, including the fossil subspecies listed in the article Ailuropoda.
• "Kermit and Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., became the first foreigners to shoot a panda"—the source actually says they were the first Westerners.
• Please be consistent in using "Panda Diplomacy" or "Panda diplomacy".
• "conventional methods to estimate the size of the wild panda population"—what are those conventional methods? Counting?
• "it is difficult for the mother to protect it because of the baby's size"—that raises more questions than it answers. Why would a smaller young be more difficult to protect? (I would expect the opposite.) What does she protect it against, anyway?
• Nothing in the "In popular culture" section seems to have much to do with popular culture.
• What makes GiantPandaZoo.com a reliable source?

Ucucha 18:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for the comments -

• I addressed the citations for females raising the cubs and for the protein levels for the leaves. I did not cite the part about the bamboo species in the high altitude, but I will search some more.
• I removed some of the links from the lead and some farther in the article.
• Your raised a good point about the Spectacled Bear and I'll look into it.
• I believe what was meant by the difficultly to raise a small cub was that it's defenseless when the mothers leaves for a short time. It could be reworded.

wiooiw (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I found a source that states the giant pandas nearest relative "genetically speaking" is the spectacled bear. wiooiw (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I see your point about the website being a questionable source, so I will try to replace it. wiooiw (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I struck a few issues above. However, what makes you think that the source you cited trumps the ones I cited that favor a different pattern of relationships among the bears? To clarify, the article implies the relationships are as follows:

	Giant Panda Spectacled Bear Other bears

but it appears that current genetic evidence favors:

	Giant Panda Spectacled Bear Other bears

In addition to those above, there are some other, broader issues I didn't mention yet:

• The structure of the article is... idiosyncratic. It jumps around from biology to issues of human interaction, and back again. Why do the two sentences of "Genomics" merit their own section? Is a list of zoos that hold giant pandas really relevant to this article?
• It's not exactly a GA criterion, but the sources are very inconsistently formatted and often lack essential information (sometimes even the publisher, often retrieval dates). There may be more unreliable sources, and many seem at best of questionable reliability—I would prefer for a biological article to be sourced to peer-reviewed literature, not newspapers and websites.

Ucucha 20:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• The second link you provided shows the relationship as follows

	Ailuropoda melanoleuca Tremarctos ornatus Helarctos malayanus Melursus ursinus Other bears

It also says somewhere in it the hypothesis that "these two bears may be a sister group" received moderate support in a mitochondrial DNA analyses, but I could be reading it wrong. This is not my area of expertize but whatever relationship that this article does show is probably more reliable than the book that I used. wiooiw (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Since it's been a week and not all issues have been addressed yet, I'm failing this nomination now. I hope the above provides some good guidance on how to continue improving the article. Ucucha 15:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for putting in the time to review. After reading some paper, I should be able to edit this some more :) wiooiw (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The concern about the relation of Pandas to bears is dubious in the initial review. Based on a detailed analysis involving a large number of anatomical characters, Genetic studies showed that the giant panda is a bear and suggested that convergent selection pressures must have been responsible for the seeming similarities between the giant and lesser pandas. As to its relation with spectacled bears, the fossil record shows that fossil bears fall into two groups, one giving rise to the large bears and the other branch giving rise to a number of genera and species that have since become extinct, leaving the giant panda as the last survivor. Though this point seems to have been raised in the discussion, I guess the citations are a bit weak and this link is a much better one.59.99.219.68 (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

pandas eat bamboo ....................

The panda bear is a popular item at the stuffed animal franchise called build a bear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.214.46 (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Camel Case?

Why is "Panda" capitalized in this article title? ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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: moved per consensus. — kwami (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC) ~~~~

---

Giant Panda → Giant panda — Incorrect capitalization. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support this is very similar to when Killer Whale was moved to Killer whale. That move was strongly supported and I don't see any reason this should be any different.--174.90.78.3 (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Though the title should actually be Giant panda. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Giant panda is not a proper noun, and thus should not be capitalized. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 21:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- wiooiw (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support: per above. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 08:03, 8 Octhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Giant_Panda&action=edit&section=15ober 2010 (UTC)
• Support: no big difference Hongdx (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support moving common names of species to lowercase. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Wouldn't this move means logically that Red Panda, Grizzly Bear, and many other pages should also be moved? Has anyone from WikiProject:Mammals weighed in on this? --Tesscass (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There's sort of a consensus for this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals, though I'd note there is nothing incorrect about either usage. —innotata 01:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The term "giant panda" is not referring to a single animal, but rather a kind of animal, so I do not think it is a proper noun, and thus should not be capitalized as such. If it is not following English conventions, then it is not very professional looking either. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 23:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Common names of species should generally be lower case, with an allowable exception for common names that contain some proper name as an element (e.g. Thomson's gazelle should be titled as I render it here). — Gavia immer (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2010 (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.

WTF... Bananas!??!?!?!?!

I don't believe that fucking pandas eat fucking bananas in the wild... that's bullshit

hi weve adjusted the page to be more accurate. Aisha9152 (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Edinburgh Zoo's Negotiations

Is Edinburgh Zoo still planning to include Giant Pandas to its collection? I knew they were planning it a while back though I presumed because of the credit crunch they cancelled or delayed these plans. Rhodington (T C) ^Sign! 21:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

China gives Britain two pandas, but will they produce this country's first ever cub Mail Online--195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Doing handstands to urinate higher up trees

BBC NEWS Science-Nature Panda handstand makes its mark would seem to be notable behaviour ? Sadly the video link is dead on the BBC site, but YouTube has it ... --195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Issues: web refs and trivia

Although I haven't had time to read the article the whole way through, there are 2 issues that I spotted right off the bat.

First, there are a number of web refs that are not archived, which leads to dead links in a relatively short period of time... especially since the links point to news articles and some not-so-reliable sources. Please follow WP:RS, find the best citations possible, and archive them somewhere (like WebCite). This will greatly reduce the need to constant repair broken links or delete content that can no longer be sourced.

Second, the "In zoos" section almost borders on being trivia. I know that giant pandas are rare in zoos and carefully controlled by China. However, if we want to list every giant panda in every zoo, we should create a formal list article (e.g. List of giant pandas in zoos or List of giant pandas in captivity) and refer readers there.

Other than that, it looks like a nice article on the surface, and I would love to see it reach GA or FA someday. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"Returned" ???

In the "Notable North American–born pandas" section, a number of pandas are said to have been "returned to China." This may seem like the smallest of nits to pick, but they weren't really "returned," since they had never been in China before. I think "sent" or "moved" would be more accurate. Could someone with the required juice please make the edit? Thanks.Lafong (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Good catch. You should be able to make these changes, though. Station1 (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Tohui (Nahuatl word for kid) -Wrong-

Tohui is not from Nahuatl, is from Tarahumara, language from the north of Mexico (Chihuahua). The original name of Tohui was "Cancun" but it was change because Cancun means "nest of snakes" in Maya. Is correct the meaning of Tohui (kid). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magrart (talk • contribs) 10:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Xonus, 8 June 2011

why is the giant panda page protected? There is no reason given in the log. I was trying to correct the information on known panda life spans and was not able to

Xonus (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This should help. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 00:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point...I was thinking the same thing! The section on the name is written very badly but I cannot edit, the Red panda was known first...it's not lesser well known at all!! In fact it's name is given to this larger but now better known other "panda". But hey guess what, the the Wikipede "own brigade" have stopped any of that "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" down. So the article stays piss poor but hey it keeps the IP riff-raff out! Wikipedia is the home of the self-appointed, self-aggrandising, and self-seeking nowadays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.77.171 (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This page (and the Red Panda page for a while) were subjected to a LOT of vandalism. In fact, the Red Panda page seems to be getting hit again (lots of reversion due to vandalism in the last week or so). If you change anything in these two articles, make sure that you source the change (unless you are correcting it to match an existing source, in which case you should say so in your edit comments). Editors that work on these two articles (myself included) are a bit twitchy because of previous vandalism, and have a tendency to revert without asking questions if you make a change to long-standing text without an explanation or a new reference. This has nothing to do with self-appointment, self-aggrandizement, or self-seeking. It's just a reaction to the fact that the vast majority of IP changes made to these articles have tended to be incorrect or non-encyclopedic.

Another misconception you have is that you can't edit the page because you are an IP. You cannot edit a protected page because the IP has not been editing for long enough and doesn't have enough edits (therea re other reasons such as edit wars for page protection, but for these pages it's been about vandalism). This is simply to avoid a lot of drive-by vandalism, which has included everything from people leaving their own name, to saying how cute pandas are, to cheering for their football team, to leaving obscenities. Even if you sign on, you have to wait for x days and y edits before you can edit a protected page. Don Lammers (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Latest development on China News, 28 Dec 2011

There is a video and pictures cited by several Chinese news resources (e.g. sina.com, mingpao) that Sichuan researchers photo-shot a giant panda eating wildebeest corpse for the first time. Ediors / Administrators might consider to put them on this article.

• Video see here from mingpao

• Original news

--Zanhsieh (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It's already in the article that they eat meat, so I don't see why this particular event is so important. Also the free images in the article are of higher quality than this non-free one. — Bility (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

News development

Is this link notable to be added? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16365392 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.205.144 (talk)

The BBC is reliable as a source, if that's what you mean. I don't see where in the article we'd put that link though. — Bility (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Pandas in France zoo

Sources like abc7.com say that two pandas, one female, named Huan Huan and one male, named Yuan Zi were shipped to a zoo in France. Should this be put on? 68.165.52.59 (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 January 2012

Giant Panda: Section: In zoos

On 15th Jan 2012 Huan Huan and Yuan Zi arrived at Zooparc de Beauval, Loir-et-Cher, France

188.223.10.1 (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, needs a source--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)`

Here is a source F.Y.I. <http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/2-pandas-munching-bamboo-amid-French-chateaux-2580237.php> 99.178.102.54 (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done, thank you--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Move to Panda?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Giant panda → panda – The common name of this animal in English is panda. There are other pandas, but this name is so entrenched that "panda" redirects here immediately, instead of acting as a disambiguation page.

Is there a local mammal naming policy to keep it here? or shouldn't we move this to panda and note the alternate (more specific) name in the first line?

If folks need a link, the general policy I'm thinking about here is WP:FNAME. — LlywelynII 15:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose; the full term is common enough that it won't be confusing to most readers, and it helps knowledgeable readers with immediate clarification regarding which panda the article is discussing. I think this is a strong candidate for WP:IAR on the grounds of improving the encyclopedia. Powers ^T 17:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Except there's nothing being improved by ignoring that rule. At least in English, "panda" tout suite only means this panda, so there is no clarity being gained, only longer link names. — LlywelynII 09:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I disagree (and oppose the move as well). In English there are two types of pandas, the red panda (the only meaning of the word until the giant panda was "discovered") and giant panda (which is actually a bear and not related to the original panda). The current setup acknowledges that the more common use of "panda" by itself is for giant panda, but steers readers to the correct usage. Don Lammers (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I know it doesn't score any points to be overly argumentative, but you are being hypercorrective. "Panda" means this panda and (even when both are listed) is the common English name. The movie wasn't Kung Fu Giant Panda and not a single English viewer thought the title was about Shifu; similarly, British 'panda cars' aren't red-and-white. — LlywelynII 23:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I stated my opinion, and that's all I'm going to do here. Whoever closes this discussion will undoubtedly take all the arguments into consideration, and the article will be moved (or not) accordingly. Don Lammers (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Fair enough. Just providing support that despite "panda"'s etymological origin (& you're completely correct about that), the current usage is completely established and not less "correct" as you seemed to imply. Similarly, "corn" originally meant "wheat", but just does not have that meaning in modern American English. "Panda"'s the same way across all dialects.
            
            Sorry not to convince you otherwise, but - eh - it's the internet. Sometimes I'm not sure anyone has changed their mind here since 1993. =) — LlywelynII 02:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Most-used common name for this topic and greater than other uses. I'm just taking Google books as example; hits for "Panda" [1] vs "Giant panda"[2]. Substract the hits for "Panda" with the hits for "Red panda" [3] and "Giant panda", and "Panda" is significantly higher than "Giant panda". Ofcourse, taking in account that "Panda" also may or may not refer to the Red panda (neglecting other further uses, which are likely minor in comparison), one can glance over and count the search results until we reach a point where the term "Panda" (without the "Red" in front of it) refers to that specific species and not the Giant panda; the use of "Panda" for the Giant panda outweighs. There will not be reasonably much confusion about what the topic covers if this article gets moved, as the use of "Panda" is more common for Giant panda than for Red panda; "Giant panda" and "Ailuropoda melanoleuca" as name is also in the lead. --Cold Season (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Panda is already a redirect to this article, and no one seems to be challenging the fact that this topic is primary. The black-and-white panda is a normal size as bears go, so I think the word "giant" adds an element of confusion. I graphed panda vs. giant panda here. Kauffner (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I freely concede that Panda is the common name for the Giant Panda, and that the Giant Panda is the primary topic for the word "panda". But I still oppose the move on the grounds that it improves clarity, precision, and usability. Powers ^T 02:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Not confusing at all. Giant does not refer to its size relative to bears (otherwise it would be giant mottled bear or something). Giant refers to its size relative to its namesake the panda, with which it was thought to be a close relative at the time. Don Lammers (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sometimes, you need to ignore the rules to do the right thing. Nothing is gained by moving this article, and some clarity is lost. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The clarity lost of moving is insignificantly small, little to none will search "Panda" and expect not to land at the current Giant panda article instead of another topic (So clear, that it even redirects here for about 5 years instead of to a disambig page). However, "Panda" as the most-used common name for this topic stands in contrast. --Cold Season (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose (1) I agree with the comments of UtherSRG and Powers. (2) There is no confusion. Informing readers that what they thought of as the end-all-be-all of pandadom was just part of the whole is part of the nature of an encyclopedia. --Bejnar (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I feel that even though this species is commonly informally referred as simply "panda", "giant panda" is more precise and unambiguous. It is probably more in line with the usage in the actual books and articles on the biology and ecology of this species. -- Vmenkov (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:FAUNA: don't use common names when it isn't clear what the name refers to. Also, WP:FAUNA is a subset of WP:COMMONNAME, and the naming standard is thus that which is most often used in reliable sources, within the WP:FAUNA specification of common (non-scientific) names. Note also from WP:FAUNA: when what is the most common name in English, or the veracity of that most common name, is so disputed in reliable sources that it cannot be neutrally ascertained, prefer the common name most used (orthography aside) by international zoological nomenclature authorities over regional ones. While the issue of regional authorities may not come into play here, clearly the implication is a deference to zoological nomenclature, which would be giant panda. ENeville (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

MAP

The indian Boundaries are indicated wrongly. Sbadrinarayanan (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)sbadrinarayanan

Do you have a source that indicates better Indian boundaries? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

superscript nonsense

"A giant panda cub is also extremely small[quantify]" O wait, you already did, two paragraphs previously! Read the bloody article before you start accusing people of writing it badly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.202.212.253 (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Tibet?

Do the pandas also live in Tibet? I remember this article used to say that. For some reason, it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.251.152 (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The IUCN Redlist states "The giant panda is confined to south-central China", and mentions specific mountain ranges. Confusion may be stemming from later in the range section where it says "By 1900, they occurred only in the Qinling Mountains and along the edge of the Tibetan Pplateau". "Tibetan Plateau" is not the same as "Tibet". Part of the Tibetan Plateau is in China, and "the edge of the Tibetan Plateau" would very likely be in China, not Tibet. Historic range is believed to go as far south as Myanmar and Viet Nam, Which would also likely miss Tibet. Tibet itself is not mentioned in the IUCN article at all.

The New World Encyclopedia, which is a copy of the Wikipedia article at a certain point in time and therefore not a valid citation for this article, still mentions Tibet. Don Lammers (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This is Tibetan propaganda. It is effectively used on certain websites to fuel hatred against the Chinese, claiming that the Chinese did not only steal their land, but also steal their cute pandas, which China misuses as their national animals. --2.245.232.197 (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Closest relative

In the classification section it is stated that the Panda's closest relative is the Spectacled Bear. Unfortunately I don't have direct access to the paper on molecular phylogeny of the bears. However, what I've been able to find online suggests Pandas are sister to the rest of the bear clade, with Spectacled Bears being the next split on the tree (i.e. [Panda[Spectacled Bear[All other bears]]]). This looks like a multi-gene phylogeny of the group with all of them saying the same thing: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/7/198/figure/F1?highres=y If true then the Panda is no closer to the Spectacled Bear than any other bear. Can anyone confirm the actual relationship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantisia (talk • contribs) 06:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thumbs

If the giant panda and the red panda are in completely different families, and they both have pseudo-thumbs, can the pseudo-thumb accurately be called unique? I know it's a nit, but it bugged me when i read it. --ubiquity (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Un-named new cub..

Born a few days ago at the San Diego zoo, Bai Yun has just had another cub. I don't think the cub has been named yet, but it should be added to the list of cubs born in North America. From their facebook page: "Bai Yun gave birth to her 6th cub at 2:10pm! This makes us the most successful panda breeding facility outside of China, and it makes our mama bear one of the oldest pandas to give birth. Congrats to our world-class team and thanks to all of you for your support!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.46.135 (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 January 2013

98.189.28.82 (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Please add the two new cubs born in the USA.

Po at the Atlanta Zoo and Xiao Liwu at the San Diego Zoo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bai_Yun

Thank you!

Done I was able to reuse sources already on the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 March 2013

Add this text to the External Links list:

• View the panda genome on Ensembl.

Ensembl is a genome browser that provides full genome sequence and annotation for a number of species, including Panda. 193.62.194.252 (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Normally I am very hesitant to add new external links to an article but I think this is better than some of the ELs already on the article. If no one objects within 24 hours of your request I will go ahead and add it. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Appears non-controversial, added.  — daranz [ t ] 22:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

the giant panda

well the giant panda is an endangerd animal and i think we all snould keep them safe and the panda is the greatist animal in the world So protect the Giant Panda! Go Pandas!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.12.114 (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request - UPDATE

In the section under "North Amerca" it mentions two pandas that are coming to Canada, first to Toronto then Calgary. This needs to be updated. The Female panda that is coming is Dai Mao, not JI JI, and the final date of arrival has been set for March 25th, 2013 via FedEx Express. Please check the www.torontozoo.com website to verify my info.

Can someone PLEASE update this for me??

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashergreen (talk • contribs) 13:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Further research to correct obvious mistake.

Under IN ZOOS > NORTH AMERICA > THE TORONTO ZOO there is this line "For Toronto this will be the second set of pandas, in 1985 Quan Quan (Female, died 2010 at Jinan Zoo at age 21)..."

If Quan Quan died in 2010 at age 21 then she was born in about 1989, 4 years AFTER she visited the Toronto Zoo. Perhaps someone out there knows the correct information. There were people commenting on the CBC news website, wondering if this bear (and the other one) are currently still alive. The two bears have been mentioned in the Canadian news quite a bit lately (March 2013) as background for the arrival of the Toronto Zoo's latest pandas but no mention of their status has been made. The status and details of Quan Quan (and perhaps the info for Qing Qing is also incorrect) doesn't seem to be widely known; maybe someone has the answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.77.249 (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request of 21/4/2013 - http://www.giantpandaonline.org/

The link "http://www.giantpandaonline.org/" is a page for sale. It is no longer to do with the giant panda; please remove it. Cyborg4 :) (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Pol430 talk to me 14:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

pandas should not be in captivty

they are an endangered species — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.118.98 (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 June 2013

At the Toronto Zoo, Er Shun is the female and Da Mao is the male, contrary to what is on this page. I have photo proof of the poster boards at the zoo and information from the zoo staff. Please change "Er Shun (M) and Da Mao (F) to Er Shun (F) and Da Mao (M)" 174.0.202.171 (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Done - The existing sources in the article confirm it without needing your photos. Thanks though! --ElHef (Meep?) 15:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 July 2013

In the infobox I see corrupted text like this:

Size: 5 feet long

Area: China  

Habitat: Forests

Food: 

Bamboo, grasses, bulbs, some insects and fruit: || [[ Size: 5 feet long

Area: China  

Habitat: Forests

Food: 

Bamboo, grasses, bulbs, some insects and fruit]]

I don't even see where this text is coming from, even less how to fix it, even if I could edit the article. However, someone ought to look at it.

86.160.214.119 (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything like that, so I assume it's been fixed. RudolfRed (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's fixed now thanks, even though no edit appears to have actually been made. Weird. 86.128.0.199 (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Habitat

This article, citing a dead link as a source, indicates that the panda's historical habitat was western and southwestern China. According to the World Wildlife Fund, it's central and southeastern China. I'm inclined to believe the latter. Krychek (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I've updated the description of its present range (in the lead) and added info on its historical range (in the Conservation section). - UtherSRG (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

panda cub born

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/GiantPandas/PandaUpdates/

On August 23rd, 2013, a panda cub was born at the Smithsonian Zoo in Washington DC to Mei Xiang. --24.52.172.41 (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 October 2013

Please change

Zoo Atlanta, Atlanta – home of Lun Lun (F), Yang Yang (M), Xi Lan (M), and Po (M), born 3 November 2010[122]

to

Zoo Atlanta, Atlanta – home of Lun Lun (F), Yang Yang (M), Xi Lan (M), Po (M - born 3 November 2010[122] and twin male cubs born 15 July 2013[130]

due to the birth of male cubs at the zoo earlier this year.

Add the following external link

130. http://www.zooatlanta.org/home/article_content/giant_panda_twins MjamesSJP (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. — Reatlas (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Vienna Zoo - Tiergarten Schönbrunn

Giant Panda cub born One more (the third one) male panda cub, yet unnamed, was born nearly three years later on 14 August 2013 via natural mating.

Vienna Zoo Tiergarten Schoenbrunn - Giant Panda cub born — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.235.181 (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Pandas born in USA

Hello there! I know for a fact that 2013 was a huge year for US-born pandas. For example, Bao Bao was just named (per 100 day tradition)! Bao Bao is the name of the Smithsonian's National Zoo giant panda cub. On July 15th, two pandas were born at Zoo Atlanta. I'm sorry I don't know how to edit this page, the lock and stuff is confusing. Anyone who gets it can check http://cir.ca/news/giant-panda-births-2013 and see how many pandas were born this year! 209.242.179.254 (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)cody

Thanks for the link. The lock means the article is semi-protected. It's not clear from the logs exactly why the article is semi-protected, but you have three options. You can:

• make a request at WP:RPP that semi-protection be lifted or
• create an account, become autoconfirmed, and edit it yourself, or
• re-open this edit request and make a specific suggestion (i.e., change x to y) for improving the article. Rivertorch (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2013

Please change the sex of Po, Mei Lun and Mei Huan (twin pandas born in 2013), the pandas at the Atlanta Zoo, to Female from Male. They were recently DNA tested and all three were found to be female. This was posted on the Zoo Atlanta website on 12/13/13 (http://www.zooatlanta.org/home/article_content/panda_update_females). Das2141 (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Rivertorch (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

"They seemed to lose their interest in mating once they were captured."

Has anyone ever figured out as to why they lose interest in mating while in captivity? --172.56.10.47 (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2014

• Macau Giant Panda Pavilion – home to Kai Kai (M) and Xin Xin (M) of Chengdu origin

Bachemj (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Done -- Diannaa (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

"yolo"

I get the uncanny feeling the text "yolo" (a phrase I absolutely detest, by the way) is not supposed to appear in the panda's infobox. 71.97.60.210 (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC) (Deku-Scrub, not signed in at the moment.)

Vandalism reverted. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This was the vandal edit, for the curious. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2014

Please make the following additions to the In Zoos section

North America

Zoo Atlanta, Atlanta – home of Lun Lun (F), Yang Yang (M), Xi Lan (M), and Po (F),[125] born 3 November 2010[126] and Mei Lun(F) and Mei Huan(F) born 15 July 2013[137]

North American-born pandas

Mei Lun and Mei Huan, born on 15 July 2013 at Zoo Atlanta. [137]

References

137. http://www.zooatlanta.org/home/animals/mammals/giant_panda/meet_the_pandas#ff_s=n574I MjamesSJP (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

How is Atlanta Zoo's website not a reliable source for what Pandas are at the Atlanta Zoo? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2014

Please change Ailuropoda melanoleuca melanoleuca and create a hyperlink that would lead to Ailuropoda. Mukthish (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I've removed the duplicate "melanoleuca" Ailuropoda is linked under Genus in the infobox - I have not linked it in the bodytext, as every use of "Ailuropoda" is in the term "Ailuropoda melanoleuca" and AFAIK we don't normally link half a species name. - Arjayay (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

In this article under Classification there could be more stated to why red pandas and giant pandas are not as related through an evolutionary stand point. Another thing the article could present is under Diet it can mention how 7 out of 13 taxonomic units are unique to pandas than to other mammals (Zhu). Under Subspecies it can be added that 0.3 million years ago a bottleneck occurred that caused the pygmy panda to be replaced by another subspecies - baconi panda that had a larger body mass (Chinese Scientists Discover Evidence of Giant Panda’s Population History and Local Adaptation by Whole Genome Resequencing). I would edit this article by adding "Although red pandas and giant pandas have the same "false thumb" they may of been evolved for different reasons; The red pandas was more than likely an adaptation to aid in locomotion, while the giant pandas may of been evolved for assisting in eating it's bamboo." under Classification where red pandas are mentioned. This will give a little bit more clarity to why they evolved the similar trait, but are only distantly related. Manuel J. Salesa. "Evidence of a false thumb in a fossil carnivore clarifies the evolution of pandas". http://www.pnas.org/content/103/2/379.full. Retrieved 30 September 2014. Walters.597 (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walters.597 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Q re "natural enemies"

Does the panda have any specific "natural enemies"? And if so can they be identified in the article (like "diet" is)? (Or is the concept "natural enemies" not a scientific descriptor of a species?) Thanks. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Under subspecies it says, “Two subspecies of giant panda have been recognized”. In 2012 three have been recognized. An article states, “The more recent panda population history showed that the panda population separated into Qinling (QIN) and non-Qinling populations at about 0.3 million years ago, and then the non-QIN cluster diverged into two populations, the Minshan (MIN) and Qionglai-Daxiangling-Xiaoxiangling-Liangshan (QXL) at about 2.8 thousand years ago” . I would edit the article by stating there has been three subspecies identified within the giant panda population where it says two. Since the article mentions these three subspecies it could also go into detail about their fitness. It can be added that “There has been genetic drift in these three diverse populations and their success varies. The success is expressed in the article that there was a very large decline in the QIN, a slight increase in the MIN and a large growth in the QXL . This shows that the giant panda is evolving and the success of the giant panda is rising with the genetic drift occurring in the populations. There has been an accumulation in positive mutations that became fixed within the population that aids in the success rate of the newest evolved group (QXL). “ Under classification there could be information added that gives evidence that giant pandas are bears rather than a lesser panda. In a phylogenetic study scientists compared characteristics of a gene that binds proteins during mitosis in a giant panda and a black bear. The results were the genomic sequence from Giant Panda is 521 bp, while the length of the sequence of Black Bear is 536 bp, which both contained 2 exons . This showed the genetic sequences were very similar. Walters.597 (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Chinese characters

I do not mean to be dis-respectful, but is there a good reason for the Chinese characters in the leading sentences? I find these rather distracting and I suspect that to the vast majority of readers, they are meaningless. I suggest these are deleted.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2015

There have been several pandas born in Mexico not listed in the "North American-born pandas" section.

Ladeleonr (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2015

I can't find the ridiculous "love panda" vandalism in the source code, or I'd remove it myself. If anyone else wants to do this, that would be fancy.

edit: Nevermind- I found it. 2620:105:B000:D100:FD1B:92D2:AD30:78EB (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2015

Please add a link to the Panda exhibition in Berlin under "External Links". The text is in English. Text and pictures are CC-BY-SA.

• Texts and pictures of the Panda exhibition at the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin

Alvaro Ortiz Troncoso (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Done (talk to) TheOtherGaelan('s contributions) 18:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2015

Please update "mya" to "million years ago" for clarity. 94.15.211.19 (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Done.DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Gu-Gu Notorious

It's not a huge deal but I just think "notorious" is a bit of a strong word for Gu-Gu. Yes, he bit three people rather savagely, but all of them jumped in his pen. The word has such a negative connotation and I think most people would say Gu-Gu's behavior was acceptable. Maybe "well-known" or "famous"?Tomlib (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)