Talk:Red panda

RfC about Pokemon references to red pandas

The consensus is that the article should not mention Stufful and Bewear.

Cunard (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Should this article mention Stufful and Bewear? RedPanda25 13:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• No Having read the article and the discussion below, I don't think that the mention would be of any merit or of benefit to the article or to the reader of the article. If anyone reading the Pokemon article wants to know what a Red Panda might be, on reading that any of the characters are Red Pandas, let them follow the link to this article, not the other way round. It would be reasonable to mention something along the lines of: "Like many other striking species of animal, Red Pandas have been represented in various media and toys." Whether to add the likes of: "such as Pokemon" is a matter of taste. I would not go further than that and do not think it is necessary even to add that. JonRichfield (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• No. Sections from "Cultural depictions" or "X in culture" have a bad habit of collecting cruft. Pokemon has a zillion different animals, and it's just not very significant to an article on Red Pandas. Kung Fu Panda is also a bit thin, being an assortment of animals, but at least I found a NewYorkTimes article about Red Pandas that considered it noteworthy to make passing mention of Kung Fu Panda. Culture sections really should cite sources that actually note cultural-significance themselves. Otherwise you just get cruft and OR+SYN of editors tossing together random examples and calling it cultural significant ourselves. Alsee (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - I don't see why this content wouldn't be included in a In Popular Culture section. Appreciate Alsee's thoughts about cruft, but Culture sections tend to include a little cruft, and it's not always bad... NickCT (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • No, unless... - On second thought; Tigraan is obviously right. The information should be verifiable before going in. NickCT (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• (bot-summoned) No, unless... there is a secondary RS discussing the animal that makes the connection to the Pokemon, per above. By the way, looking for another example, I see that Pikachu is not included in either List of fictional rodents or List of fictional rodents in video games. For that one, there is probably a source out there... Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In fairness, Pikachu itself is generally regarded as being based on a pika, which isn't a rodent. Anaxial (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
• No. Fully agree with JonRichfield's and Alsee's arguments and suggestions. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• No. While it's likely that red pandas are of relevance to particular pokemon, the reverse isn't necessarily true. If there was some good source out there, on the primary subject of red pandas, that referred to the pokemon, it might be worth evaluating for notability, but there doesn't even seem to be that much. It's just minor trivia, especially since Stufful and Bewear apparently aren't notable enough for more than a single line even in the articles that are specifically about pokemon. Anaxial (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
• No - Anaxial expresses my view succinctly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

RedPanda25 - there are two reasons why this newest instance of "eeeeh, I recognize an animal in Pokemon!" should not be added to the article: a) providing the inspiration for a comic, animation, or game character is not an indication of notability. You may notice that House mouse does not include a five-screen list of cartoon mice. b) Even if if this were sufficient, you would need to provide an authoritative source that states, expressly, "Pokemon X is based on the red panda". What you or anyone else concludes privately, based on similarity, has no weight whatsoever. We summarize existing sources, we don't insert our own conclusions. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree. The criteria for any item's inclusion in a Wikipedia article is that it is mentioned in WP:SECONDARY sources. There are other places on the web like a blog or your facebook page. MarnetteD|Talk 21:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I would disagree with the argument here, although agree the conclusion.

It's not just about sourcing (Pokemon can source itself very robustly), it's about relevance. The relevance here just isn't commutative: red pandas might be important to Pokemon, but Pokemon just doesn't matter to red pandas. It doesn't belong here for that reason, and no amount of sourcing will change that. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You are right of course; the commutative relevance test is the most suitable measure to use for popular culture items, and I should remember to put it front and center. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

In this case, the relevance is commutative; because, as stated, the Pokemon reference supports the misconception that red pandas are bears. And as for a source, I have this. RedPanda25 13:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Pokemon is not any sort of RS for anything to do with red pandas. Also the community-sourced supposition of Bulbapedia even fails RS for in-universe Pokemon content.

The closest I can see Pokemon getting to being included in Red panda under an IPC section would be if a Pokemen red panda (and not a Pokemon that isn't a red panda) has generated enough visible press (maybe as Guardians of the Galaxy did for raccoons) that it raises the public profile of red pandas generally. This would need secondary sourcing, not merely primary sourcing from Pokemon. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see it in Red_panda#Cultural_depictions if a secondary source discussed it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems as though the only sources which mentions the connection with red pandas are fan-made wikis. Would such a source be sufficient? RedPanda25 02:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Generally not; see WP:USERGENERATED. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:13, 2 November 2017 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2018

In this article, several place names mentioned include:

• At the Cincinnati Zoo
• Red panda at Prospect Park Zoo, New York
• curator of red pandas and special exhibits at the Knoxville Zoo in Knoxville, Tennessee,
• the Rotterdam Zoo in the Netherlands
• The Padmaja Naidu Himalayan Zoological Park in Darjeeling, India,
• a male red panda at Birmingham Nature Centre in Birmingham, England, escaped

This is all very inconsistent. Some countries (Holland, India, England) are mentioned explicitly, whereas some countries (America) are omitted.

If counties / states are important, then Darjeeling should be "Darjeeling, West Bengal, India" and Birmingham should be "Birmingham, West Midlands, England". If countries / states are not important, then Knoxville Zoo should be in "Knoxville, America", etc. to be consistent.

If it's important to specify the country when mentioning Darjeeling, Birmingham, etc. then it is also important to specify the country for American locations to be consistent. 58.166.139.124 (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that follows. English counties, American counties, Indian states, etc, aren't necessarily equivalent in size or importance, so it doesnt' automatically make sense to include all of them in all cases. I think the rule should be to give as much information as is necessary to identify the location without going overboard. For example, there are lots of Birminghams, so we need to make it clear which one we are talking about. But there is only one Birmingham in England, so "Birmingham, England" is all you need to say. Iapetus (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2018

2600:1700:2E20:D60:7425:92A5:4F24:C3B7 (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done For an edit request to work, you need to:

• identify a specific part of the article that needs to be changed (quoting as needed),
• explain what change needs to be made (giving us as complete details as possible),
• explain the reasons why this change should be made (based on reliable sources or this site's policies and guidelines.

Edit requests are not a key to have a robot unlock the article for you, they are a means of communicating with other humans who will carry out the changes if they are reasonable. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2019

I would like to add that in Nepal they are called Fire Foxes. RedPanda06 (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

What's your source for that? It's already under alternative English names, BTW (Red_panda#English_names). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 15:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2019

Kindly add a weblink to the Sorbus wardii https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbus Zakir09135 (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 12:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2020

ADD news that red pandas are TWO species not one:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51632790

"The red panda is not one species but two, according to DNA evidence.

...Researchers in China analysed the DNA of 65 wild red pandas. This revealed two separate species which went their own separate ways after populations were divided by a river about 250 thousand years ago."

-- Saltation (not logged in for ~decade, looks like either my account's been suspended or I didn't record a changed password)

202.86.32.140 (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

We should wait for the peer-reviewed article to be published, but NOT announce this here with a newspaper article as sole reference!! 65 samples is not a large sample size for such a conclusion. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

[article] has now been published. Given the rather large size and scope of the red panda page, how should we split it up? Geekgecko (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020

🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯 soooo many errors lema fix em 70.185.18.232 (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to go ahead, but this request template is for specific changes that you want to make. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2020

Request to remove citation (3): Flynn(2000), p 197. As any attempt to find such a journal or paper proves fruitless and it appears to be unverified Somethingoriginalwastaken (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

​The full citation is actually already present elsewhere on the page, the title is "Whence the Red Panda?". I have now fixed the broken link in that short footnote, thanks for pointing it out. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Evidence for two species of red panda

Recent genome sequencing of distinct populations of red panda has revealed significant genetic divergence in mitochondrial DNA, whole genome DNA and Y chromosome DNA. This genetic divergence corresponds to the distribution of the Himalayan and Chinese red panda subspecies and is the first convincing evidence that the two species exist as two separate species of red panda, the Himalayan red panda (A. fulgens) and the Chinese red panda (A. styani). I propose the re-listing of the two red panda subspecies as separate species, or at least a mention under the 'Phylogeny' heading that it has been proposed they form two separate species.

DocLovely (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

References

There are two species

The existence of 2 distinct species is very well supported in the scientific literature. Furthermore, there are by now multiple secondary sources stating this clearly. A revision of the article is therefore warranted. Smithsonian/National Zoo for example lists them clearly as 2 species: https://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/red-panda. Similarlly the BBC agrees: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51632790 Here's the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/28/red-pandas-are-actually-two-separate-species-study-finds and finally here we have CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/27/world/red-panda-species-scli-intl-scn/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.64.216 (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

We try to wait until both the ASM and the IUCN are in agreement. Currently, the ASM lists two species, but the IUC still has the second taxa listed as a synonym. Of the sources you list, the SI link lists them in trinomial naming format, but calls them species (species use binomial, subspecies use trinomial), and the other links don't mention scientific names at all (or only use A. fulgens). These do not adequately support splitting our article into two articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2020

in Cultural references add

Kichi - Mowgli's red panda friend in The Jungle Book (1989 TV series) Rmhegde (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Another Wikipedia article cannot be used as a source per WP:CIRCULAR. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Should it be split?

I'm thinking about making this article refer to the genus and create new pages for both species, but I am unsure as to whether that would be permissible, as it might depend on which taxonomic authority Wikipedia follows. Currently [MammalDiversity], which seems to be the primary online database for mammal species, has split it into two species, but I'm sure that other, older authorities that Wikipedia follows might not have. Geekgecko (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Tree of Life Project generally consider species notable as a Wikipedia topic. When the two red pandas are recognised by secondary sources, then the additional articles for the two species are appropriate. I'm not sure we are quite at that time yet.

The wikipedia mammal project is in a difficult place. The secondary source considered the default choice for the mammalian taxonomy is MSW3 and that is now hopelessly out of date and there is no clear successor. Given the MDD is also under the auspices of the ASM, it is a good candidate, but it is still a work in progress. In practice the IUCN seems to be the main guide for making changes to mammalian taxonomy. For instance, the Felidae articles all follow the IUCN Specialist Cat Group recommended taxonomy and MDD follows this. At present, the IUCN still seem to be recognising one species of red panda.

As a practical matter, how much material is there for the two separate species articles? Would the coverage of red pandas be improved by having separate articles rather than one covering all aspects? Here is what WP:TOL has to say:

Not all species need have separate articles. The simplest (and probably best) rule is to have no rule: if you have the time and energy to write up some particularly obscure subspecies that most people have never even heard of, go for it! As a general guideline, though, it's best to combine separate species into a single entry whenever it seems likely that there won't be enough text to make more than a short, unsatisfying stub otherwise. If the entry grows large enough to deserve splitting, that can always be done later.

On balance I would say wait until the IUCN recognise the two species and that, for now, it is better to expand the current article to cover more of the differences between the two species/subspecies. That said, if you think you have the material to make two articles that are not stubs then it's certainly permissible to make the changes (WP:BOLD), using MDD as you secondary source. But beware, others may disagree and revert the changes. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your exhaustive pro and con comments! I think we should postpone splitting this page until the proposed new species is recognised as valid, and more peer-reviewed publications are available for more than a stub page. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Nocturnal/Linking Suggestions

Hello, I am a new user so please forgive any mistakes.

I would suggest changing the phrase "active from dusk to dawn" in the intro to simply "nocturnal" as it is more direct in regards to the animal's activity.

I also noticed two irregularities in the hyperlinks to other articles. These include:

The word "Japan" is not linked in its first instance, but rather in the second instance.

The instances of "North America" are not linked anywhere in the article.

Nikitamazepin (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Cultural depictions

A cryptocurrency Ethereum Token - RedPanda Earth Token, uses red pandas as a mascot to raise cryptocurrency funds to save endangered species, adopt red pandas, and conserve wildlife. RedPanda Earth Token has also released non-fungible tokens or NFTs called Red Panda Pals to raise capital to donate to save red pandas. RedPandaEarth (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Turn into a genus page and make two different species pages?

This paper: puts the red panda as being a genus of two species, instead of a monotypic species. This move was accepted by the most recent ASM edition: [1] [2]. Should we make this page a genus page, and create two new pages for each species? Reply with your thoughts. J0ngM0ng (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of us discussed this already a couple of months ago : see #Should_it_be_split?. And we decided to postpone this decision until more articles are available that can be referenced. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

References

the split should wait, but I think we should make this into a genus page. Similar to Anoa. J0ngM0ng (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2021

Please add to the Cultural Depictions section.

A cryptocurrency Ethereum Token - RedPanda Earth Token, uses red pandas as a mascot to raise cryptocurrency funds to save endangered species, adopt red pandas, and conserve wildlife. RedPanda Earth Token has also released non-fungible tokens or NFTs called Red Panda Pals to raise capital to save red pandas. Source - https://redpanda.earth/ Donation Proof - https://redpanda.earth/donation-tracker.html NFTs - https://opensea.io/collection/red-panda-pals RedPandaEarth (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: seems like WP:COI and WP:PROMO. Please declare yourself of any connection to the abovementioned organisation. Interesting Geek (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2021

{{subst:trim|1=

Red Pandas aren't carnivores, they are omnivores. They eat bamboo and small rodents, therfore making them an omnivore.

58.8.235.43 (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe our article calls them carnivores. The first sentence says "carnivoran", referring to the order Carnivora Cannolis (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2021

In the Cultural depiction section, there is an unsourced statement "The red panda is primarily featured in the upcoming Pixar film, Turning Red." Pls, cite it with this citation here [3]. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:5023:99FB:2ED1:17B6 (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

FAC

I hope to make this my next FAC mammal project. Anybody want to join? I see that the person who brought this to GA is no longer active. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm interested, but depends on your time frame. I'd need a week or so. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

BhagyaMani, that's fine. I'm just trying to figure out how to start. LittleJerry (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

. I just GANed the aurochs, so we can start this one anytime next week. Happy New Year. – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we first need to thoroughly check the references, rewrite the lede and a few sections so to better fit with the FAC criteria. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll come up with a game plan next week. LittleJerry (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

BhagyaMani, Okay so I think its best to write this article from scratch or if we are reusing old text, check the sources and make sure the text accurately reflects them. We have to be extra safe or we'll get nailed at FAC. Now for organization, I propose:

• Etymology and naming
• Taxonomy (start with classification and have subsections on phylogeny [relationship among extant animals] and fossil record)
• Description
• Distribution and habitat
• Behavior and ecology (Diet, social behavior, reproduction, communication and mortality)
• Conservation and threats
• Cultural significance

For major sources: I recently bought his book. The first edition can be downloaded here We can use both. LittleJerry (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

LittleJerry (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, some restructuring may also be necessary, but we think of this later, once we revised the sections. I'll start with the Taxonomy one. – BhagyaMani (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh and we can use UK English. LittleJerry (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Etymology and naming: in the 1994 edition, Glatston also introduced the possible translation 'eater of bamboo' for the Nepali 'Poonya'. Is that out now in the 2nd ed? – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Just checked. It mentions that on page 53. LittleJerry (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Hodgson (1847) proposed the name 'panda', see page 1118 ref'ed in section Taxonomy : I shall ... subjoin a fresh trivial name, Panda ... – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Re the names "true panda" and "common panda": I haven't seen these names used in any 21st century publication. And think we can skip this together with the 1972 ref. More appropriate would be to explain the alt names currently bolded in the lead: lesser panda, red bear-cat and red cat-bear. What do you think? – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

BhagyaMani, could you look though the sources for "Distribution and habitat" to see if they are accurately cited? You can also search z-library for the article that don't have a linked URL. I'll be rewriting the "Characteristics" section. LittleJerry (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Will try to work on behavior tommorrow or the next day. LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

BhagyaMani, I'll work on behavior and ecology soon, could you look over conservation/threats? I can write the captivity section. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Lets keep this image taken in Sikkim in mind for the taxobox instead of the captive one. – BhagyaMani (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately the panda does not take up as much room in that image. The captive image isn't ideal but it gets a full look at the body of the animal. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

My last edit about RP in 3 Indian states was about it. Ghose & Dutta (2011) in their book-chapter do not provide much info about habitat, but lots of details of individuals when and where encountered since the mid 1990s. I suggest to keep that paragraph separate as is for now. The next will be about Myanmar and then China. Then we can later see whether and what needs cutting down or extending or merging. – BhagyaMani (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Re subspecies: just saw that you already use 2 different names for the 2 sub/species, so I'll continue using Chinese red panda also in section on distribution in China. I think this ref name 1994 needs to be replaced with the one to the 2022 book-chapter 23 : the 3 authors already recognise 2 species. – BhagyaMani (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll add some finishing touches to some things I wrote. In the meantime, I think you can move on the threats and conservation. I see you accessed the 2021 book via google books. If you need access to more pages/chapters, let me know. I could scan or take pics of pages and post a google docs link. The 2021 version is probably more undated on conservation. LittleJerry (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Great will be if you can check the 2021 book-chapter by Ghose & Dutta on RP in India, pp. 357–373 in 1st edition, with regard to : is presence in 6 PAs in Sikkim still valid, or meanwhile more? and in West Bengal still 2 or more? I searched for but did not find any article in those 10 years about records in other than those 8 PAs in these 2 states, so wonder whether I perhaps missed sth. – BhagyaMani (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

BhagyaMani the new edition doesn't have that chapter. It has a new one. I linked the pages here LittleJerry (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks!!! – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

We may have to recheck all the bamboo species + resp. links : bamboo classification has been revised profoundly in recent years, but changes are yet not reflected in many referenced articles. E.g. Arundinaria aristata is now a syn of Thamnocalamus spathiflorus, see https://wcsp.science.kew.org/synonomy.do?name_id=446354. And Arundinaria inludes only 3 species native to Americas. – BhagyaMani (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Re section conservation : we need to decide whether we list all the protected areas in this section or in the section on distribution. I'm fine with either one but think it not necessary to repeat them. Your thoughts? – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

We can keep protected areas in distribution for now. LittleJerry (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Revised. A few are still missing, but I suggest to only add those with pages that can be linked, e.g. not the umpteen reserves in China. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Sub/species

Since Joshi et al. (2021) suggested that the upper Brahmaputra forms the boundary between the 2 sub/species, but not the Nujiang Salween river, the question is : how shall we treat this here in regards to names – Himalayan + Chinese RP – used in the other sections? Shall we keep on assuming that all records in Tibet, NE India, Myanmar are of Himalayan RP, even when east of Brahmaputra valley? Or shall we skip using sub/specific names throughout ? I'd prefer latter. Your thoughts? – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The Wu (2021) paper states "...the red pandas living in southeastern Tibet and northern Myanmar belong to the Chinese red panda, while the red pandas inhabiting southern Tibet belong to the Himalayan red panda together with the Nepalese individuals." Does this effect the "Distribution and habitat" which divides the range by subspecies? LittleJerry (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed sub/specific names in this section. If the Brahmaputra turns out to be the barrier to gene flow, then also the RPs to the southeast of Dibang Valley in Mishmi Hills might be "styani". – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

SSP

I would like to replace the outcommented content in the section on captivity that is based on old studbooks. But after hours of searching I did still not find any article containing info on when the red panda SSP was established, how many zoos participate and how many individuals are kept in those zoos. Not even refs in this one give away anything useful in this regard. Does the book chapter 11 contain sth. that you can add ? – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The new edition only mentions the SSP twice and does not answer those questions. LittleJerry (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I also tried a search for such information to no avail. I suspect some more might be available to AZA members. The only possibly useful thing I found was that the SSP became part of a Global Species Management Plan (GSMP) in 2012 (fact sheet) and the announcement mentioned that the "SSP has been working with other regional programs over the last 20 years" (link). —  Jts1882 | talk  08:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This is really odd that none of the curators of the resp. SSP member zoos did not write up anything. Such info is available for most of the cats kept within SSPs. – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Re names

Cuvier used the word 'panda' for the 1st time, but it is hardly possible that he knew a Nepali word. Documented is that Duvaucel was posted in West Bengal from where he sent a specimen and description to Paris; he travelled a lot in the region and also employed hunters to supply him with live and dead animals. On the other hand, each ethnic group in Nepal has a different name for the red panda, e.g. thokya, thongwa, wah, wakdonka + a few more, but none sounds remotely like 'panda'. Pocock was the 1st who listed 'nigálya ponya' as being a local name, but did not explain who told him; Hodgson is the most likely source for names : when he described a red panda specimen, he was already posted in Darjeeling. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

See the Hindi word pañjā in Caturvedi's Hindi-English dictionary. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

See indeed nigálya ponya in Hodgson's description : not explicitly Nepali. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Last things

We should probably add information on predators and parasites. I have trouble finding much on predators from quality sources. I may also add some more on feeding. After that, the lead paragraphs should be fixed up and then we can submit to peer review and/or the copyeditors guild. LittleJerry (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I can add a bit on diseases in captivity, and have 2 more on habitat selection, but 0 on predators. I didn't find anything relevant about conservation initiatives in Myanmar and China; in latter only some nature reserves established in RP range : you may want to add this with ref to the 2021 book chapter 21, pp. 393. And fully agree to revising the lead! – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I have 3 more to go on diseases, one in each on coli, parvovirus and distemper, which I'll add 2morrow. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do with conservation initiatives in Myanmar and China. LittleJerry (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think heart rate and breathing are needed, unless you can show there's something unique about them compared to other small carnivores. LittleJerry (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I found this just by chance, so added it. The more I dig in diseases, the more I find of course. But most vets report just one or a few cases, so I think these may not be worthwhile adding now, e.g. canine distemper in just two captive RPs. – BhagyaMani (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you add references for the 2 alternative names red bear-cat and red cat-bear that presently have redirects? Most suitable may also be the section Etymology for these names. – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree to removing these 2 names, as I haven't seen them in any of the 80+ references. – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The map is wrong : northern Myanmar should be INcluded. I'll download distribution data and make a new one. – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

BhagyaMani: I think we should note in the "Distribution and habitat" section that the range of the two pandas overlap in some areas and they use different micro-habitats. See cite 47. LittleJerry (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

They do not overlap : see the upper Brahmaputra called Siang, which constitutes the boundary between the 2 acc. to Joshi et al. (2021), ref 12 : Himalayan RP west of the river and Chinese RP east of it. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh no. I meant overlap between the red panda and the giant panda. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I wonder whether this is off topic; would certainly be necessary on a page on Ailuridae. They co-occur only in a rather small area, small compared to the RP's global range; 2 questions: 1) do you envisage to see all the reserves listed, or just their use of different microhabitats? 2) several other carnivores co-occur with RP; why focus on giant panda only? – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I suggest to wait for whether FAC reviewers address this. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

No, don't make a list. Just mention that in areas where they overlap, they use different microhabitats. They are both specialized bamboo eaters with similar adaptations, so this is not off topic. Its no different then "predator competition" sections in carnivore articles. We have already compared them in "genomics" and "characteristics". LittleJerry (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this 1 sentence sufficient? – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

BhagyaMani, i think all we need to do is wait for Wretchskull to finish their copyedit and this article will be ready for FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm ready when you are and also think it would be nice, if you Wretchskull would have a look again after the many changes during peer review. – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

LittleJerry and BhagyaMani, I'll continue the copyedit now. Wretchskull (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

LittleJerry and BhagyaMani, I've finished copyediting. I have found a few confusing sentences though, and I hope they can get clarified:

• "Compared to other mammals, the microbe community in red pandas is less diverse." Do you mean "Compared to other mammals, the microbiome in red pandas is less diverse"?
• "The London Zoo acquired two red pandas in 1869 and 1876 caught alive in Darjeeling" Do you mean that they caught two live red pandas in Darjeeling in 1869 and 1876 or what?

• Yes, 2 were caught and sent to London Zoo. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Later born cubs were sent to other zoos so that about 250 red pandas had been exhibited in zoos by 1969" Do you mean "Cubs born later were [...] or "Later, born cubs were [...]"?

• Yes, cubs that were born later in zoos were sent ... BhagyaMani (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The article looks good for FAC. Wretchskull (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Jonesey95, could you look though the cites and see if the formatting is consistent? LittleJerry (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done per MOS and CITEVAR consistency. I left three "clarification needed" notes on values of |page= that did not look right to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

BhagyaMani can you fix these? LittleJerry (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The pages nos. of these articles cannot yet be fixed, as they are not yet included into an issue, but published as 'first or early view', when I checked again a few days ago. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani: I have one last point regarding prose. I addressed it earlier but it may have been overlooked: "Compared to other mammals, the microbe community in red pandas is less diverse." Do you mean "Compared to other mammals, the microbiome in red pandas is less diverse"? Wretchskull (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I revised it. LittleJerry added this, and I hope it is better understandable now. ? – BhagyaMani (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• @BhagyaMani: I see that you changed faeces and faecal to feces and fecal respectively. The article uses British English, and therefore it has been changed to American English, which would be erroneous due to using more than one English variant. If you want to use the current AmE spelling, the rest of the article needs to follow suite. Wretchskull (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a ton! – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Citation for the number of red pandas left

I am not sure I saw a citation for the number of pandas left. I think the 10000 is accurate I just couldn't find the citation for it. Lubakhalil (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the IUCN assessment, the numbers seem quite uncertain. There is a 1999 estimate of 3-7,000 in China, with estimates of a few hundreds in the other countries. Choudhury (2001) estimated 5-6000 in India (according to this San Diego Zoo factsheet), but the IUCN uses much lower numbers. The fewer than 10,000 seems to be from the World Wildlife Fund, also mentioned in this article on their site, by the Diego Zoo and in this article. It's not clear where the number comes from, although it is consistent with the IUCN numbers. But given they are thought to have declined in number by 50% in two decades (IUCN) and the bulk of the number comes from a decade old Chinese estimate, the 10,000 is probably an overestimate. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

And is the uncertainty in numbers really surprising? When a dozen red pandas all look alike, it is hardly possible to identify individuals. You cannot even compare images, as it is rarely photographed in camera trapping surveys, but lots of sighting reports. And in a few sites, it has been sighted for the first time only a few years ago. So this and any other number are guesstimates at best, far from being "accurate". – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead image

Do you guys think this 2 images here might be better to be on infobox? [4] and [5]. 2001:4455:364:A800:E5E5:3906:820:3691 (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Added the second one. Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this image would be prefect for the lead but we would need to get rid of the blur of the plant in the foreground. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the article for the genus; taxonbar should reflect that.

Regarding this edit by Cygnis insignis: This is Wikipedia's article for the genus Ailurus as well as for the species Ailurus fulgens; the taxonbar should reflect that (see template documentation in {{taxonbar}}: "The same approach can be used when monotypic taxa have a single article, but there are multiple entries in Wikidata"). Also on this topic, the lead should also probably mention/bold the genus qua genus, not just part of the binomial. Umimmak (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Organisms : the boldfaced common name is followed by the italic un-boldfaced scientific name. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Your response (a) has nothing to do with the taxonbar, (b) doesn’t address that the lead should still mention that this is the article for the genus, and (c) only discusses articles for a species, not articles about multiple taxa. It doesn’t really address anything I said. Umimmak (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I added back the wikidata id for the genus as it covers both species and genus.

I assume that the genus qid was removed because {{taxonbar}} was throwing a nasty red error. The error seems to be because the Wikidata didn't have a sitelink for the English Wikipedia genus page. I've added one and that fixes the error. Why {{taxonbar}} is throwing the error is another matter. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jts1882: I asked WT:Lua#Lua error with Taxonbar?, seems to have something to do with a recent change in Module talk:ResolveEntityId but it’s been reverted as they figure things out. Umimmak (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that discussion and couldn't find the problem in Module:taxonbar. I added the wikidata item to the redirect partly as I've seen how much effort has gone into this article recently and partly because I think redirects should have appropriate wikidata items. The priesthood at Wikidata resisted that for a long time, but now its allowed even if the software tries to stop you adding a redirect. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant to raise that problem here, nothing but the error was displaying. I tried adding the page to the WD genus item and got a 'duplication error', I hope that is the reverted change mentioned. Re: "the lead should also probably mention/bold the genus qua genus, not just part of the binomial." I agree, but whatever the reason for not emboldening the species name in articles could also be applied to the genus name. ~ cygnis insignis 10:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: The Wikidata software follows the redirect to the species article and gives a duplication error. To add the sitelink to the Wikidata genus item, you have to remove the redirect from the Wikipedia page for Ailurus as I did with this edit. Then you can add the sitelink at Wikidata and once done revert the edit on the Wikipedia redirect page. It's ridiculous that it has to be done this way, but that's how Wikidata taxonomy rolls. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

They should have fixed the code so that won’t be necessary in the future, as I understand it. See Module talk:ResolveEntityId Umimmak (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a different hoop. We want both the genus and species items at wikidata to point to this article. Because site links have to have a one-to-one correspondence, this has to be done by linking the redirect at the genus (it's also logical to link the genus wikidata item and the genus Wikipedia page). The trick above is required because the Wikimedia software doen't allow linking to a redirect to a page that is sitelinked (and there is no intent to fix this). —  Jts1882 | talk  17:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

One species or two?

So because of recent studies and considering that many scholars are now starting to think that there are two red panda species as opposed to one, should articles about the new species (and the genus) be made? 24.150.121.149 (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@24.150.121.149 correct, studies said that many scholars are now actually starting to think that there are two red panda species as opposed to one. there is one species of red pandas.

you're welcome for the answer of are there one species of red pandas or are there two. Greyson Harrocks (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

See also the extensive discussion on the subject elsewhere on this Talk page. The short summary being that, if you have enough information on the separate species to make a full page about it, rather than a stub or repeating what's already here at this page - go for it. Anaxial (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

'Firefox'?

An edit earlier today added firefox as an alternative common name for the red panda, which was removed. However, in 'Cultural significance', the article identifies the red panda as 'the namesake of the Firefox browser'. I don't have full access to the citation, so if somebody could clear this up, thanks, Vortex (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Disregard, I looked through the talk page and saw the earlier discussion about naming the panda. Thanks, Vortex (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

This article completely misses the point about the Red Panda and its name

This animal was named in 1825 using an anglisized approximation of a Nepalese word. It was another 44 years later before the completely unrelated species of black and white striped bear required a name, and so, it was decided to reuse the word panda from the smaller but similarly striped creature. The point is the Red Panda is the true Panda - because it was both the first and original named species known as the Panda. It should be made clear that the bear species that has become synonymous with the word that everyone associates, when you say "Panda", is named in error from a completely unrelated species. A naming convention that makes as much sense as calling humming birds something like "hover parrots" because of their bright colors or zebras the "stripey horses". Red Pandas are the true Pandas, the Giant Panda is a taxonomical naming error that has snowballed into an error that cannot be corrected but it can be acknowledged. 146.200.202.126 (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I share that same sentiment as with many scholars. The article doesn't even mention once anywhere that the red panda can be considered to be both the original and only true panda. I had just tried to add that well cited true fact in, but it was reverted only a few minutes later without much fair reasoning. I hope people do add it in but I have at least tried. SolarDGrayson (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2022

Please add, "The classification of red pandas has been very difficult due to the lack of genetic evidence and DNA extraction. Although previous studies have attempted to tackle this issue by utilizing the very little DNA they were able to extract from blood, muscle, and skin, they have relied on the morphological similarities between red pandas and raccoons, such as similar skull, tail, and teeth structures." after, "The evolutionary lineage of the red panda (Ailuridae) stretches back around 25 to 18 million years ago, as indicated by extinct fossil relatives found in Eurasia and North America."

ScarJo1 (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Not done. The lead doesn't need any refs; and the relevant ones – Glatston et al. (2015) + Hu et al (2020) – are already referenced in resp. sections. – BhagyaMani (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I need this published for a school paper. Please allow this change to go through.

Thank you. ScarJo1 (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@ScarJo1:  Not done: It doesn't matter if it is for school, the edit still needs to comply with Wikipedia standards. You and your instructor should read Wikipedia:Student_assignments and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section RudolfRed (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

How do I format this sentence to ensure it is added? May you please guide me?

Thank you. ScarJo1 (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

This statement is anyway incorrect, so again : it will NOT be added. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Only true and original panda

I want to add into the article that the red panda can be considered to be the "only true and the original panda".[6][7] Many reliable academic sources explain why that is, however it seems at least one editor don't want that fact to be allowed in. Which I do not understand the reason why and so making this thread. I believe such info is noteworthy, significant and deserving to be in the article. Instead of reverting my edits, do please provide at least one sufficient reasoning here as am curious what could possibly be the reason to forbid this.SolarDGrayson (talk) 08:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

If we could simmer down a little on the true and original!! angle - the claim about this species being the first (and for a long time the only) to be known as "panda" in the West is undoubtly true, and is in fact mentioned at Giant_panda#Etymology (although without a source). Reliable sources for this are not hard to find, first and foremost this seminal book. A short statement in this regard should be added to this article, with a bit less vehemence, and then the source can also be ported over to Giant panda. I'll be happy to do that later today. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for hinting at and linking to the "seminal book", Elmidae! Indeed, the introduction chapter of this book is the reliable source for the red panda's name, and is therefore referenced in the section on Etymology. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Elmidae: Thanks for showing me that link. I like how Angela titles the book by referring to the Red panda as being the "first panda" as it deserves that recognition. Yet the current article doesn't mention it is the first species to be called a panda, despite being extremely historically noteworthy. I only wanted to add that in yet got reverted. If you could do it, that would be appreciated. I would do it myself today but the other guy would revert me. SolarDGrayson (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That's outside the scope of the thread (that's discussing whether the panda is the first animal to be called a panda). Elmidae was not saying here that ponya means "red panda" in Nepali. (Which fyi means "bamboo eater or bamboo footed according to even Glatston 2021[8]). They were replying to my thread and stating that such information was true and they intend to add it in eventually but without overstating it. And takes less than a sentence to point out some relevant history to better explain that Red panda got named as "panda" first many decades before the "giant panda" and helps explain why they had to change their name from panda to red panda, despite being the original panda.[9]SolarDGrayson (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I got distracted. I have added a brief note in the etymology section: "and was the only animal known under this name for more than 40 years", which segues into noting the later discovery of the giant panda. Sourcing to Glatston already in place. I suggest this covers the basic statement that should be made here without going off on tangents re "originality". I will also port the source over to Giant panda (if needed - will check). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

That's cool and thank you for that. It's good; concise and avoids trying to define what a "Panda" is. I don't think I could had written it better myself. :)SolarDGrayson (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Ponya means bamboo eater or bamboo footed

@BhagyaMani: So far, you reverted my edit[10] where I simply added that "Ponya" means "bamboo eater" or "bamboo footed". I made this edit[11] in good faith as I believe the Nepali word, Ponya means "bamboo eater" and shouldn't mislead people into thinking the modern Nepali word for red panda is ponya. And many sources have confirmed this[12] [13] and don't know why it's being reverted. But I will for now, assume good faith and believe that you have read my sources and somehow have a good reason to explain why my multiple sources are to be deemed incorrect or my edit was not factual. Do give a response here.SolarDGrayson (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not have the time to read your sources. "Ponya" was mentioned already in earlier versions of this page and has been discussed on this talk page : check the archive. Since this page has been a Featured Article for more than a year now, we only use scientific literature as sources but NOT magazines or newspapers or other articles written by journalists. – BhagyaMani (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani My sources confirm that Nepali word Ponya means bamboo eater. To revert it without reading my sources and having to make me resort to go to talk, I do not think that's fair. Not reading my sources, is not even a valid excuse. Especially when it can't take more than 3 minutes to read the whole page in infamous WWF (World Wild Life) that writes panda name is derived from "the Nepali word ‘ponya,’ which means bamboo or plant eating animal"[14] And less than a minute to read the Smithsonian and reach the third paragraph that writes the term "panda" may have been derived from the Nepalese words "nigalya ponya" which means "bamboo eater".[15] And it takes maybe around no more than 30 seconds (on average internet speeds) to google "where does the Red Panda name come From", and quickly see all the top search result confirming that the word "panda" may have come from the Nepalese words: "nigalya ponya" meaning "bamboo eater." [16][17] Is There a conspiracy where everyone there is wrong about this but you? Even your favourite source, Angela R. Glatston (which you say is the most reliable source for this). She said that the origin of the word, "panda" is unclear but a theory is that it may have likely just been derived from the Nepalese term "nigalya ponya" which means "bamboo footed". [18]Which actually supports what I wrote. SolarDGrayson (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani: And per your request, I spent 19 minutes of my own time looking through and reading a super long discussion thread in the archives that drones on and on.(Because you directed me there.) :( And all I see in the archives is a lot of original research. People making up their own theories on how the term came. Original research is frowned upon here. Your own scientific source, Glatston, says that panda may have derived from the word "nigalya ponya", that could mean "bamboo footed".

The word panda is derived from a Nepali dialect word nigalya ponya: nigalya is thought to come from nigalo meaning bamboo, but the source of ponya is less certain, although it may come from ponja meaning the ball of the foot or claws -making the complete meaning 'bamboo foot' (Glatston 2011).

[19] There seems to a wide consensus among scholars that "panda" comes from a Nepali word, "nigalya ponya" which may mean "bamboo footed or bamboo eater". I don't do original research and simply relay what she and all the other actual experts say on the matter. And so should you.SolarDGrayson (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani:I see you haven't replied back to my reply for 2 days now, despite I can see you actively editing other articles and have been pinged. If you don't intend to ever respond, it would be appreciated if you won't make me wait further but I can assume you have no opposition to my edit if you don't respond for a third day. And as you said it yourself that we can only use scientific sources and you also wrote that Glatston is the most reliable source. So I propose to restore my edit with some minor alterations, and adding in (Glatston 2011) as my additional supporting source. Proposed text: The origin of the word, "panda" is unclear but one theory is that it may have been derived from a Nepali dialect term, "nigalya ponya" which means bamboo footed or bamboo eater. If you still got problems and want to revert, then as an admin pointed out, we move to dispute resolution noticeboard as I done my part in discussing this with you.SolarDGrayson (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

As already mentioned and argued before, I think we should keep on referencing the introduction chapter by Glatston (2021), but not adding articles in magazines or websites. @LittleJerry: please comment. BhagyaMani (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Leave it the way it is. LittleJerry (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It's against the rules in canvassing for editors you are familiar with, to support your stance that nobody should add in the facts that the word, Panda, comes from Nepali dialect term, "nigalya ponya" which means bamboo footed or bamboo eater. That's wrong. My reply shows that I am using an academic source. Your Glatson so don't appreciate you acting like I haven't told you that even your Glatson supports my edit, and if you were true to your words. You shouldn't have anymore issues as yourself had stated that only Glatson is reliable and we should only use her as our source. My edit can be 100 percent supported by her alone and so my edit was not incorrect. SolarDGrayson (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@littlejerry Why is it so forbidden to add in the fact that the word, "Panda", comes from the Nepali dialect term, "nigalya ponya" which means bamboo footed or bamboo eater? I have yet to see one single proper reason here for that. Simply saying "it's not an improvement or that current version stays" are not fair valid rebuttals. Especially when Glatston herself even says that so there really should be no more excuses.[20] Do provide at least One valid fair reason why this well sourced and vital fact must be omitted? If you refuse to give one fair reason and continue to say it's unacceptable ,then it's apparent that we simply cannot agree whether to add this fact in, and maybe we should take this to the dispute resolution noticeboard. SolarDGrayson (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I am co-nominated this article for FA so its not canvassing. The articles you cite are not good even for the claim. Go find better sources than websites. Find an academic book. Overwise leave it alone. LittleJerry (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I apologise if I misinterpreted you, but it doesn't seem you had even bothered to read my reply. "Find an academic book." Um, I have quoted an academic book. Glatson who both of you seem to agree is a reliable source, supports my edit.

The word panda is derived from a Nepali dialect word nigalya ponya: nigalya is thought to come from nigalo meaning bamboo, but the source of ponya is less certain, although it may come from ponja meaning the ball of the foot or claws -making the complete meaning 'bamboo foot' (Glatston 2011).

[21] What makes you think I haven't quoted an academic book from Glatson when I made that clear above? [22] SolarDGrayson (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Neither of you have yet provided a single direct good reason to omit the fact that panda word comes from the Nepali term, "nigalya ponya" meaning bamboo footed. Both of you gave me a further strict criteria to satisfy. I have satisfied both criterias of using only academic papers and also only using Glatston. Should be okay now to add the edit in with Angela Glatson as a source, where her words supports my edit. [23] SolarDGrayson (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani:I am confused what to make of your reply today, and possibly just misunderstood you. You haven't told me in clear terms if you agree with the factuality of my edit. Do you actually have issues with the information that (Panda, comes from Nepali dialect term, "nigalya ponya" which means bamboo footed) Or you don't have issues with that, but just got issues on me using other sources to support that true fact? Nonetheless I plan to add in this edit tomorrow.The origin of the word, "panda" is unclear but one theory is that it may have been derived from a Nepali dialect term, "nigalya ponya" which could mean bamboo footed"[24] and only using Glatston as my source. Do you have any valid specific issues with that proposal? Let me know in clear terms please as I assume all issues are now addressed and resolved, and will add it. SolarDGrayson (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Update; since I see no opposition raised against proposed text for 2 days. I added in Nepali dialect term, "nigalya ponya" means "bamboo footed" (supported by an academic source from Glatson).[25] I had however decided to retain that edit / speculation that it's thought to be a local name for the red panda despite it could be very wrong as the term could just be the locals miscommunicating with the non Nepali speaking French pioneer. Plus futhermore, today's Nepalese majority don't even call them that. So not comfortable having such a weak speculation in when there are no locals today anywhere calling red pandas as "nigalya ponya". But I added a note that the theory is uncertain but the term translates as meaning"bamboo footed" which is necessary and well sourced wiki appropriate context. I think that concludes this talk. SolarDGrayson (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Red panda knowledge for 9 year olds

I want some more of red panda facts. You need better hand writing. I can barely read what you said on this thing.❤Boo 76.80.194.146 (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2024

Name Red Panda Network as the main NGO protecting red pandas in the world Natashyenka (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RudolfRed (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)