Jump to content

Talk:Red panda/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Reproduction

On 2009-10-26, Seduisant reverted a previous edit, noting ""only" refers to mating, not time period". As a writer, this triggered my "ambiguity" response. So I looked again at the English (which was indeed ambiguous), then checked the Portuguese version, went back through their referenced sources, and rewrote this paragraph. Note that one reference in the Portuguese pointed to a web site which in turn pointed to Roberts & Gittleman, 1984 (which I have a copy of) so I referenced the original instead of the Web site. In the process, I found "begins to collect material, such as brushwood, grass and sheets" which should be "begins to collect material, such as brushwood, grass and leaves," and "The nest is normally located in a hollow tree or a rock column" which should be "The nest is normally located in a hollow tree or a rock crevice." I have no idea when this vandalism crept in.Donlammers (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the second paragraph as well, adding a reference. I removed a bit about eye color as I cannot find a reliable source. If someone can source the following statements we can add them back: "The eyes are first grey, and after six weeks slowly start to turn dark in color, becoming fully darkened in about 70 days.". Also, the sources I have just state that "the cubs start opening their eyes at about 18 days," So I have eliminated the "but not fully until 30-40 days." Again, I can't find a reliable citation, and this doesn't seem to add anything critical to the article, so I am eliminating the statememt.Donlammers (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, now it is GA, some ideas to get to FAC

I have passed this as it qualifies as of now, but there is still plenty which can be done, some points I will list below:

  • Images need alt text
  • Many images are just "panda in a tree". Try to make each image add something unique to the article, and have a descriptive caption. We have wikimedia commons for galleries so there is no need for one on the page.
Have removed gallery. Still need to go throuogh and make sure pix are relevant for where they appear. Donlammers (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Someone deleted my not on the Firefox pix that I want. I'm leaving it deleted from the article (it was in an HTML comment), but putting it here so it doesn't get lost. "Still looking for a really good "Firefox" illustration (backlit by sun?). Denver Zoo has one but it's probably not public domain." Donlammers (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Several paragraphs still need inline referencing. I didn't think they were a deal-breaker for GA as there was nothing really likely to be challenged there. Would be necessary to tighten up for FAC though.
  • I am a big pro- popular culture nut, but I didn't think it fair to make it a barrier for GAN- what I have in mind ultimately is something like I have done in Lion or Australian Magpie. Instead of x in pop. culture section, one has a broader Cultural depictions section - this allows one to incorporate things like traditional folklore from areas where it lives. For instance, I think the Hoffman stuff above is good and should be included, but agree (especially for FAC) is that if not backed up by a reliable reference then it gets left out for the time being.
Update - this document has some interesting commentary on the red panda and its lack of mention in culture and folklore of Nepal, mentions it being national animal of Sikkim, and mascot of the international tea festival in Darjeeling, a 13th century chinese painting, and the possibility that Indira Gandhi kept them as pets as a child. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to revisit to help smoothe out prose down the track. It'd be good to see this at FAC sometime. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Some additional comments from lmillertekdok (a friend and coworker - I don't have time to do this right now, but don't want to lose the comments either):

I think you might want to put a link in whenever (or at least the first time) you mention "studbook." Also maybe a tiny bit of explanation. As a naive reader, I didn't know what this was, and had to go hunting down in the footnotes to find out. Also, you call it the "International Studbook" a couple of times, whereas the actual title seems to be "National Studbook." Oh, wait, now I see that there are more than one studbook. Now I'm even more confused. Also, what does footnote 13 point to? Donlammers (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am removing the gallery. Casliber (our GA editor) suggests removing it going forward because we now have access to Wikimedia and a link to the Wikimedia category page in the External links section (I'm not sure I agree with the location of this link, but this seems to be the standard). I looked at the Wikipedia style guide on this (wp:IG) and it states the following:

"Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of galleries may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject."

I do not believe that the images in this gallery "add to the reader's understanding of the subject." If they illustrate something specific, they should be placed in a more appropriate location in the text and captioned so that the reader knows why they are looking at the picture. I agree with Casliber that images inline should also have an obvious purpose, and be captioned appropriately, and I will be working on this issue gradually over the next couple of months, while trying to add ALT text to all of the remaining images. If you want to add alt text, please first read wp:alt, which has a really good discussion about the differences between captions and alt text. Donlammers (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Captivity

The following sentence appears under the introductory sentence "Recent successes in Red Panda captive breeding include:"

"Plans to reintroduce two more Red Pandas to the wild in the spring of 2008[43] were evidently canceled or delayed, as the releases are not recorded in the studbook as of May 2009."

If it's not known whether the reintroduction took place, let alone whether it was a success, it doesn't seem to belong in the list. In addition, even standing by itself, the sentence hardly seems worth mentioning. Basically it says: "Two more Red Pandas may or may not have been released and, if released, the release may or may not have been successful. Lmillertekdok (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this sentence.Donlammers (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparing Numbers

There were a couple places in the article (Captivity) where numbers of individuals in North America and births in the Western Hemisphere were compared with numbers worldwide. I found the comparisons confusing, and had to read the sentences several times to see what exactly was being compared. For example, I had to go to the cited PDF document to see if the count of the number of individual subspecies (511 and 206) referred to individuals only in North America or in the rest of the world. It turns out that it was the rest of the world, so I added the word "worldwide" to make it clear. (There may be better ways of doing this). I think it would be good to keep this issue in mind if such comparisons are made again in the future. Lmillertekdok (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Population Numbers

Population numbers cited in the article are confusing and inconsistent, and need a better explanation or reconciliation.

Introduction says:

"Accurate population figures are difficult to find, with estimates of wild populations ranging from 11,000 to 20,000 worldwide."

Where do these figures come from? Seem contradicted by others in article.

Conservation says:

"The population was estimated at less than 2,500 individuals in 1999,[25] and between 16,000 and 20,000 in 2001.[31] The IUCN Red List (2009.01) estimates the total population in China to be between 6,000 and 7,000 and the population in India to be between 5000 and 6000 in the wild, with wild populations still declining.[1] However, these numbers are from surveys done in 2001 and earlier."

Is the 2,500 figure worldwide? If so, that is wildly divergent from the 16,000-20,000 figure, as well as the 11,000-20,000 cited in the Introduction. I think this discrepancy needs to be addressed more seriously. Just saying that "Accurate population figures are difficult to find," while true, may not be sufficient.

I would also recommend a separate section titled Population where these issues can be addressed in more depth.

Lmillertekdok (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the best way forward is to do what you've started doing here, that is, list the sources and what they say to see how we can proceed. The easiest might be just to actually do this in the article. Would be great if some explanation of these divergences cound be found. I'd personally prefer all the info in a Conservation section as the whole poplulation issue is intimately linked in conservation. Remember that sections don't have to be small. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I listed the sources in the article because, as lmillertekdok points out, the numbers are wildly divergent. All of these figures are worldwide wild populations. The latest IUCN Redlist (2009.2, just out) shows the listing history prominently, and states: "This species is listed as Vulnerable because its population is estimated at less than 10,000 mature individuals with a continuing decline of greater than 10% over the next 3 generations (estimated at 30 years). The population decline in the last three generations (30 years) is estimated to be less than 30%, and therefore the species does not qualify under criteria A. History:
1996 – Endangered (Baillie and Groombridge 1996)
1994 – Vulnerable (IUCN)
1988 – Insufficiently Known
So even the IUCN Redlist estimates have been wildly divergent. I can't imagine that between 1996 and 2008 the population gained 7500 individuals, since it's supposedly been declining all along. However, so far I have not found an explanation (which, as Casliber points out, would be ideal), and have decided to let the citations stand on their own rather than trying to speculate. My best guess is just that the experts are "refining" the data and this is where we are in the process at the moment. The more current figures all point towards the higher number, so perhaps we should basically say something like "estimates are hard to find... Based on current IUCN data... (found here: http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/714/0) rather than trying to quote all of the separate estimates, and give at least some detail of how this was calculated (which is shown in the IUCN article). Donlammers (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with MarnetteD reverting the edits by 138.162.0.45 on 2010-06-25T08:29:38. Basically these edits changed the numbers and removed the citations. If reliable citations can be provided for the lower numbers (2,500 instead of 11,000), then we can change this. If 138.162.0.45 is listening, please do not put down numbers that you cannot cite to replace numbers with a citation. Donlammers (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have rewritten the population numbers, both in the intro and in the body, with citations. I suppose we don't technically need the citations in the intro (they are shown in the body as well), but I included the two extreme estimates (IUCN comes right down in the middle) because this has been a contentious issue. If you want more detail or have additional citations, please do not hesitate to add the information. Donlammers (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I feel that it is incorrect to say that population estimates are hard to find. It would be better to infer that it is hard to estimate the population because they cannot be directly counted. I feel that the IUCN estimate should be the one that is used. Not only is it the most recent, but the IUCN will use the most reliable data. It could be a good idea to mention that plans for another population count are underway. I shall try and find a source for this. Innocenceisdeath (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Behavior/Crepuscular

The Behavior section says:

"The Red Panda is nocturnal and crepuscular (most active at dawn, dusk, and night)..."

The Crepuscular article to which the above quote links says:

"Crepuscular is a term used to describe some animals that are primarily active during twilight, that is at dawn and at dusk.[1] The word is derived from the Latin word crepusculum, meaning "twilight."[1] Crepuscular is thus in contrast with diurnal and nocturnal behavior. Crepuscular animals may also be active on a bright moonlit night. Many animals that are casually described as nocturnal are in fact crepuscular."

Thus, the Crepuscular article sets up a contrast between crepuscular and nocturnal, seemingly implying that an animal can't be both. Maybe that's wrong (I'm not a naturalist, I don't know). But it seems to me that, at a minimum, we can't justifiably link the statement that "The Red Panda is nocturnal and crepuscular" to an article that says "Crepuscular is thus in contrast with ... nocturnal behavior." (My italics.) Perhaps, as the Crepuscular author says, the Red Panda is only being "casually described as nocturnal," and is "in fact crepuscular." Again, I don't know, but I think I can safely say that the statement that "The Red Panda is nocturnal and crepuscular" is not supported by the article to which it is linked.

To remedy this, I deleted the citation to the Crepuscular article, and linked only to the Roberts article, which says "Captive red pandas are nocturnal and crepuscular and exhibit a polyphasic activity pattern throughout the night. ... In the wild, red pandas are reported to be most active at dawn, dusk, and at night" I also changed the order of the language around a bit to say:

"The Red Panda has been reported to be both nocturnal (most active at night) and crepuscular (most active at dawn and dusk), [8]..." which I think makes the definitions of nocturnal and crepuscular clearer.

Lmillertekdok (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

North America

My apologies there just wasn't enough room in the edit summary for my thoughts. First let me say that I am so used to this page being vandalized that I obviously jumped the gun on my edit. After reading Innocenceisdeath edit summary I went and checked the two sources provided. I could not find the state of Tennessee specifically mentioned in either source - though I may have missed it. ETSU (Eastern Tennessee State Univ?) was mentioned as was a specific dig. My question would be is that dig only in Tennessee or does include other states? Also the second source mentions a younger fossil found in Washington state, thus, it would be inaccurate to only mention Tenn in the parentheses. Also, if new fossil discoveries occur in other states or provinces do we keep adding them to the parentheses? I feel that using the term North America covers the general info. But if the others of you who take care of this page like having the specific states mentioned I would certainly not edit war over it. Congrats to all of the recent work on this page and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 16:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Me too (about the vandalism). I decided to let this slide for now because I'm not sure that the fact that it is in Tennessee is important to anyone except those in Tennessee. The dig listed for the second "find" is in Tennessee, though as you point out, that is not stated in the article cited. So, what really should be done if someone wants a better location is to use the dig name (which is in the second source), and then state more precisely where it is (which would require another citation). I fairly quickly found a Tennessee government web site that talked about the dig, but not specifically Red Pandas, so presumably it wouldn't be too hard to put together proper citations. I don't have time right now (though maybe in a day or two), which is why I decided to just let it slide for now. Donlammers (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edit comment said something about us not supposed to use paid sources (which I agree with). If it isn't in the abstract, I don't go any farther and I don't use that abstract as a source. Is that still not allowed? The abstract can be verified by anyone. Otherwise, if I can't find a copy of the actual document, I don't use the source. I can't swear that all sources are valid that way, but I have tried over the months to gradually replace anything that I could not personally verify, and I always figured that the abstract was something that I could. Donlammers (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that the information could and should be presented better than simply in parenthesis.

The fact that it was found in both Tennessee and Washington state could be deemed important to some. For example, it might be interpreted to show it was also widespread across North America.

I also apologise, there were two things I didn't realise here:

  • That the information on the location of the dig wasn't viewable to all (my institution automatically logs me into that website)
  • That articles requiring purchase cannot be cited

Regarding point two - where does it say we can't cite articles that require payment? The citation is {{cite journal}} and not {{cite web}}, doesn't this mean it was the journal being cited and not the webpage itself? Surely Wikipedia allows the citation of articles published in non-free journals. (Although I fully understand and agree that free sources should be used when possible)

Regardless of all this, another source already cited elsewhere on the page also provides this information. Hence, I have updated the page accordingly. Innocenceisdeath (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

My thanks to you both for helping to clear things up and for the more complete information that is now on the page. The link to the article in "Nature" finishes by saying that "to read the full article you may need to log in or make a payment". I missed the log in part. I am fairly sure (although wikipolicy changes so this may no longer be the case) that we cannot do an external link to websites that require payment for viewing. I thought that policy existed for article citations also. I mean unless I paid I wouldn't be able to verify that the edit made was correct and that doesn't seem right. However, that is no longer a concern in this situation and, again, I appreciate the fact that both of you took the time to explain things to me. So now it is back to fighting the vandals that will certainly return to this page in due time. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD | Talk 19:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. But please, I cannot find where it says we cannot cite such articles. I was under the impression they could still be used if no alternatives were available. Surely citing a non-free journal is no worse than citing a non-free book. Innocenceisdeath (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right. I was applying (in error) the policy for external links to this citation. Indeed when I went looking for it again and found this [1]. it states what you have been saying. That is that they are okay for citations. My apologies for any confusion. Cheers again. MarnetteD | Talk 21:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify my former statement as well... Each editor is supposed to supply only citations that he/she can verify. Over the last few months, I have found enough broken/incorrect citations in articles that I am editing that I have made a rule for myself that I will try to replace any citation I can't personally verify with one that I can (I am not always successful, and I usually just leave the old citation in those cases). Since I don't have access to most of these professional articles, I either stick with facts that I can verify in the abstract, or I try to find another source (again, not always successfully). If you have better access, and can cite the source including page numbers and all, then I see no reason that YOU are prohibited or even discouraged from putting such a citation in the article, even though I can't do it. Donlammers (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe rather than simply replacing these citations, you should add a new freely available one. I know from experience, that lots of these non-free articles are a mine of information. It is a shame that they aren't freely available to all. But to those who can access them, they are very interesting indeed. Just a thought.Innocenceisdeath (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
In principal I agree. I don't mess with citations unless I rewrite something (or find one that is blatantly wrong), and I don't think I have removed any citation that might be useful just because it was behind a "pay as you go" page. However, if I rewrite something, I need to be able to verify that the citations are still relevant to the new text, and if I can't, I need to find something else. If someone else then adds a proper citation that I can't access, I probably won't delete it (this has not actually happened to me yet -- most people just come through and make statements). Citations aren't supposed to be "interesting." They are supposed to support the immediate point. If there are "interesting" articles about a subject that aren't needed directly for a citation and have not been used as a general reference for the article, they should probably be added to a "Further reading" section (which we don't have yet in this article, but could certainly add). I have also gotten highly suspicious about the way some sources work. For instance, it's a well known "fact" that "firefox" is Chinese for "Red Panda" (see citations in article). The only problem is that we seem to have failed to let the Chinese in on the secret. And, when I removed the statement from this article, it magically disappeared from a lot of other places on the Web, which were just mirrors or copies. The same applies to "panda" being derived from some Nepalese word. So when I work on an article, I want someone who is legitimately working on improving the article (even if it isn't me) to be able to verify the source. This isn't always possible, so I may leave leave a citation if I can't find an alternate, but I do prefer to be able to see the source. Donlammers (talk) 10:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Physical Characteristics

I have information regarding the differences in physical characteristics between the two subspecies to add. At the moment there is no information about these differences in the physical characteristics section, but there is under the subspecies section. I propose we remove this information from the subspecies section and instead create a subsection to the physical characteristics section about these differences. Innocenceisdeath (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I just reread the article, and I think that's make sense. Donlammers (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Habitat

I removed the "fact" template that innocenceisdeath placed, replacing it with the citation for the article which contains the information in question (Roberts/Gittleman 1984). However, I think ultimately this needs to be expanded a bit, since I found conflicting altitudes in other articles. None are hugely off, but Glatston says "heights of between 1,500 m and 4,000 m" (Glatston 1994, p20), and I'm pretty sure another article I read says "as low as 1200 m. Put together, they imply 1200 m to 4800m, which is quite a bit larger spread. Donlammers (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have found many conflicting altitudes in many articles. I think it should be made clear that it is reported differently from different sources. I shall try and compile a list of altitudes and their corresponding publications. Hopefully this will help give us a better view on things. Innocenceisdeath (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(Comment originally posted on my Talk Page moved here for wider discussion)

The note says "rm deprecated inline interlanguage links". OK, that's fine, but now there are no links, and we want to link there to show the point. I realize that there are links at the side of the article, but many people may not, and these were basically being used as citations to show the language usage. Does this mean that we need to find outside articles that demonstrate the name in each language now? It seems that we have just made it harder for the reader, and I'm not entirely sure what my options are. Thanks. Donlammers (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My view is that linking to the various articles in other languages simply clutters up the text with distracting blue links. If there is doubt or dispute about the foreign names mentioned, then, yes, they will need individual citations for verification. I don't think there is any urgency for citations here unless anyone is actually disputing the foreign language names given, although citations would probably be required in the long term for promotion to Featured Article status, as simply linking to Wikipedia articles in other languages doesn't, strictly speaking, actually verify the facts.
Personally, I'm not sure that many readers would be using inline interlanguage links to navigate to articles in other languages, as that is what the links at the side of the page are for, but maybe other editors here can comment on whether removing the inline links has improved or worsened navigation . --DAJF (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I meant to answer this a bit earlier... I agree to the approach suggested. Presumably if someone wants a citation they will also have some idea how it might be satisfied, so we can certainly defer until we have a better idea what might be done (or for that matter if it needs to be). Donlammers (talk) 01:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2

Naming the panda

I'm getting a headache trying to figure out all the name issues surrounding this species. I am going to be bold and do the following:

  • Remove firefox from the lead. This name is discussed in the body of the article as a literal translation from Chinese, but firefox is not a common name for the species, either in English or Chinese, at this time, so I don't think it belongs in the lead. There is evidently evidence from Chinese books (cited, but I don't have access to them) that places the use of "firefox" in China back to at least 1984 (based on the publish date).
  • Put "shining-cat" back where it belongs as the meaning of Ailurus Fulgens (it's not "called" shining-cat anywhere that I've ever seen -- it "means" shining cat), following the format in the Giant panda article and all the other mammal articles I just looked at (taxonomic name in parentheses, italicized, and not bold).
  • Hopefully I can find the Firefox article where the naming of the browser was discussed. It was NOT named "after" the red Panda, and the logo is a red fox, not a red panda, though recently the browser folks have been playing up the connection to red panda. Until and unless I can, I'm going to leave everything else alone, though I don't think the alleged connection is entirely accurate. In fact, at one point is was specifically denied (unless my memory is completely hosed, which is always possible).

Hopefully I don't offend too many people with these changes. If you disagree, please comment here and we will work towards fixing any issues. Don Lammers (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

agree with this approach. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The (well-referenced) information that an alternative Chinese name for the red panda is huǒhú (which literally means fire fox) was removed as being "some nonsense", without further explanation. Higher up on the page are several citations of the use of firefox or fire-fox in English texts that well predate the February 9, 2004, announcement by Mozilla of the name Firefox for its browser. Mozilla explained the name change on its website on the same day, stating that the name meant "red panda". They may not have named it Firefox because they felt an urgent desire to name a product after Ailurus fulgens, but it is also not the case that they came up only later with this story on the meaning of the name. Suppose for a moment they had picked the name Firebug. Then they would likewise have explained that it is similar to Firebird, easy to remember, and sounds good. And they would next have answered the question "What's a Firebug" by informing the reader that it is an insect with a striking red and black coloration. It doesn't have to be in the lead, but now the present article text does not mention the name firefox at all, which is overdoing it in the other direction.  --Lambiam 23:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Error in Evolutionary History Section

Original text: "The specific epithet is the Latin adjective fulgens, "shining".[38] At various times, it has been placed in Procyonidae, Ursidae, with Ailuropoda in Ailuridae, and in its own family, Ailuridae."

This section contains a bad error, but the page is locked for editing. The Ailuropoda are actually in Ursidae not in Ailuridae, though the author might have meant they were once placed with giant pandas in Ailuropodidae before it was made a subfamily of Ursidae (subfamily Ailuropodinae).

Here's a possible revision:

"The specific epithet is the Latin adjective fulgens, "shining".[38] At various times, it has been placed in Procyonidae, Ursidae, and with Ailuropoda in Ailuropodidae (prior to its move into Ursidae), and in its own family, Ailuridae."

Irondogs (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting it. I've fixed it.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I have clarified a bit. "Its move to Ursidae" is ambiguous because the last use of "its" in the sentence refers to the red panda. Also, in WIkipadia, it seems the subfamily is listed as Ailuropodinae. Finally Ailuropodinae and Ailuropodidae both just redirect to Ailuropoda, so I put the wikilink there instead. I'm a b it fuzzy on taxonomic naming, so if I didn't get that right please correct it. Don Lammers (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect information about red pandas removed from the wild

It states that Glatston personally handled 350 pandas over 17 years. These were not wild animals that were brought into the population. These were managed animals already in zoos in a studbook. She is the international studbook keeper for red pandas. She is referring to the number of animals she managed in zoos, not captured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.154.222 (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2014

Under threats, there is a line that reads "Glatston reported he personally had handled 350 red pandas in 17 years." There isn't any mention to Glatston before, so I would suggest naming her as Dr. Angela Glatston and perhaps making a brief mention of her career or relevance here.

Also, it should be she, not he. Nelovishk (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 11:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 Done The request is clear and correct. Don't bite the newbies applies here, I think. User:GKFXtalk 16:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have made it clear that I made the edit before reading the request, and so it wasn't done exactly as requested here. User:GKFXtalk 16:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2014

The red panda was Ireland's favourite zoo animal in 2013[2].

A potentially relevant addition to the cultural depiction section of the page. Dalel487 (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Done -- TOW  01:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction on pets.

It is claimed at this point that the pandas are kept as pets, but at Red panda#Domestication that they generally are not. Any thoughts? User:GKFXtalk 16:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2014

Remove entirely the line "The logo of the Firefox web browser depicts a red panda curled up around the globe. The name "Firefox" is stated to derive from a nickname of the red panda." or at least the first sentence, reworking the second into something like "The name of the Firefox web browser derives from a nickname of the red panda.". The sources cited to do not explicitly say whether Firefox was named after a (purported) nickname of the red panda or if it was merely a coincidence, and they definitely do not say that the animal in the logo is a Red Panda - it is quite clearly a red fox. Thunderclaw (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - the first source implies strongly that the meaning of Firefox was known to the namers, meaning it was deliberate. (See section "What is a Firefox?") The logo is not mentioned in the article anyway. User:GKFXtalk 18:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Could someone edit this sentence?

"In English, the red panda is also called lesser panda, though due to the pejorative implications of this name, "red" is generally preferred." Obviously it's not "pejorative" since it's a measure of the animal's size, not its value. 109.157.79.50 (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Done - UtherSRG (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2015

Delete caption "A red panda standing on the ground".

"standing on the ground" is superfluous to the point of being almost comical, and the caption above already says that it is a red pands, which is very obvious anyway from context.

109.153.245.89 (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Red pandas could be standing on branches, and the caption on top is the title of the infobox. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Let me repeat. The caption is unnecessary. It is OBVIOUS that the animal is standing on the ground. Stating it is silly. It is OBVIOUS that the caption above applies to the picture, and that the main picture in an article about a red panda will be of a red panda. The article did very well for a long time without such a redundant caption, and will do very well in future when this one is removed. 109.153.245.89 (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
That's your interpretation of it, and one not based on site policies or guidelines. MOS:CAPTION requires captions for pictures. If you can think of a more descriptive caption, maybe we can work it in. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, wait, I see that the more specific guidelines actually says that it's ok to remove it. I'm still not convinced that it harms the article, however. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

New Baby Red Panda born at the Detroit Zoo June 22, 2015

We're happy to welcome Tofu to the Detroit Zoo and to contribute to the captive population of this threatened species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.165.176 (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The word "firefox" doesn't even appear in the article anymore except in a citation at the bottom

At the bottom of the article, it currently says 'Naish, Darren (2008-04-03). "Nigayla-ponya, firefox, true panda: its life and times". Tetrapod Zoology. Retrieved 2010-01-09.' in a citation. That is the only place the word "firefox" currently occurs in the article.

It has been demonstrated many times that the name "firefox", "fire fox", or "fire-fox" is one of the common names that has been used for the red panda species, going back many decades prior to the existence of any web browser named "Firefox".
It is my contention that the removal of this commonly used name from the article was done by people who mistakenly believed that the name "firefox" for red panda was never commonly used prior to the "Firefox" web browser's existence, when in fact that WAS a common name for the species even before the "Firefox" web browser.
The article in its current form does not mention the word "firefox" or any of this naming controversy even ONCE. I believe this constitutes a bias against the idea that "firefox" is a commonly used name for this species. The word ought to appear at least ONCE in the article or at least get a PASSING mention to this controversy somewhere.
In conclusion, I find it remarkable that the Firefox disambiguation page has a link to the red panda page, when the red panda page only has the word firefox once at the bottom appearing as the quoted name of a cited article. If you are really THAT adamant that "firefox" is not an appropriate name for the red panda that you are unwilling to have that name appear even once in the red panda article, then the link from the Firefox disambiguation page to the red panda page ought to be removed. As things stand, it is quite inconsistent and illogical.
I think the source I cited for the name "firefox", BBC Nature, is a very reputable source, as the BBC is the most well-known and trusted news organization worldwide, and easily meets Wikipedia's criteria for being a reliable source. The thoughtless revert of my edit was uncalled for and I hardly think it is justified. In fact, this talk page has many other persuasive arguments by people likewise advocating the same side of this argument as me, and I would advise those who revert any edits that mention that this species is sometimes called a "firefox" to consider the fact that half the people posting here on the talk page strongly disagree with them and this matter can HARDLY be considered settled in favor of people who don't think "firefox" was commonly used as a name for this species prior to the existence of "Mozilla Firefox". That side of the argument is simply factually inaccurate and has no basis in reality. I would like to see them find some sources they can cite that say that this species WASN'T called a "firefox" prior to "Mozilla Firefox". I doubt they can even find ONE reputable source that would say that, whereas there are countless sources where the name "firefox" was indeed used in past decades, many of which are mentioned by other people on this talk page and which I do not need to repeat again here, just scroll up and you'll find them listed by other people. This is almost as ridiculous as if the article about snow leopards were rewritten to eliminate any mention of the name "snow leopard" after the release of "Mac OS X Snow Leopard".
Honestly, I was merely attempting to correct a grave error in this article and it gets immediately reverted by someone who is obviously misinformed because the facts speak for themselves. I do hasten to add, of course, that I am assuming good will on the part of those who are mistaken about the facts, I am not in any way attempting to denigrate their intentions, I am sure they believe that they are factually correct and that I am misinformed. Regardless, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and leaving out relatively important information about something in an article about it is misguided. For articles about rare species such as this, common names that they are known by ought to be included in the articles, since not everyone refers to a species by the same name. There is plenty of room for compromise. For instance, the name "firefox" could be mentioned, but it could come with a little disclaimer that would say that there is an ongoing dispute/controversy as to whether or not this was a common name for the red panda prior to "Mozilla Firefox" coming out.
That could be in the middle or near the end of the article rather than the head paragraph. But to not even mention the "firefox" thing once in the article, that is just absurd, there ought to be some better way to settle this dispute than to not mention it at all in the main article, especially seeing as the Firefox disambiguation page is pointing at this article. See for yourself. That appears to be a logical contradiction, between the Firefox disambiguation page and this page, meaning one of the 2 pages must be wrong and needs to be corrected. In my humble opinion, it is this page, the red panda page. If you disagree, then by all means, resolve the logical contradiction the other way, and remove the "red panda" link from the Firefox disambiguation page, but as it stands, Wikipedia is contradicting itself on this matter, which means at least one of the contradictory pages must be fixed once people can come to a consensus as to what the truth is. I hardly see how Wikipedia expects to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia if it doesn't at least TRY to avoid contradicting itself, and if efforts to remove these contradictions get very quickly reverted. I do accept the possibility that I may be wrong in this matter, and that is why I have proposed to you the solution of removing red pandas from the Firefox disambiguation page, if everyone else does come to a consensus that "firefox" is not a valid name for this species. Regardless, I believe the facts are on my side in this matter, and that "firefox" has been used to refer to red pandas for decades (although not necessarily as a single word, sometimes perhaps with a space or hyphen in between "fire" and "fox"). But since it is quite a rare species that used to be little-known, naturally this information has not always been widely available to the general populace (for instance, when I was a child, the only pandas I had ever heard of were giant pandas).
I apologize if this argument has been wordy or repetitive, I was just trying to get all of my points across so that anyone else who reads this talk page will be able to read and consider them, and so that perhaps we can come to some sort of consensus based on a compromise over how to include the word "firefox" somewhere in this article, so as to remove the blindingly obvious logical contradiction between this page and the Firefox disambiguation page. --Yetisyny (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
See also my contribution above at Naming the panda.  --Lambiam 20:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This topic was amply discussed a couple of years ago already. see these contributions. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I presented the following two Chinese sources as references, both giving 火狐 as an alternative name for Ailurus fulgens, the first predating Mozilla's browser by many years:
  • 中国西南民族硏究会 (1986). 西南民族地区经济概况. 四川省民族研究所. p. 127.
  • 勒安旺堆，云南省迪庆藏族自治州地方志编纂委员会, ed. (2003). 迪庆藏族自治州志. Vol. 1. 云南民族出版社. p. 196.
Both are printed books and the first predates Mozilla's browser by many years. However, these references were removed because by the previous discussions it is an established and unquestionable fact that 火狐 is not a Chinese name for the red panda and therefore sources using it are ipso facto unreliable and should not be used.  --Lambiam 10:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
PLEASE MOVE UP THE FIREFOX REFERENCE. THANK YOU. It also needs to be in disambiguation if not already there! As a longtime Mozilla community member, I can tell you affirmatively that the browser was named Firebird until a disgruntled database company cried foul, so they searched for another 'fire' animal, so NO, Mozilla didn't make up the name!Jhrussell401 (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually Endangered

Guys, I looked it up on National Geographic, It is actually endangered. Would someone please change that? Frozenfire71 (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2015

Please add some more infomation on that the firefox browser uses this as their offical animal in the logo of firefox in windows 8 2015 10 19 16 58 AM 65.175.134.44 (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Already done There is already a short blurb in the Cultural depictions section of the article. If you want to add more please be explicit with your request by stating it in a "Please change X to Y" format. Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Red panda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Please remove the Space Travel section

Please remove the `Space Travel` section, as recently added by user Siconnect. Thanks. Tomjnixon (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor Talk! 15:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2016

the red panda is identified as an endangered species, when in reality according to WAZA the red panda is only vulnerable Pbrad101 (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/714/0 , which is used to cite the listing, the species is Endangered. Re-open this request if you have a source that states otherwise. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Firefox web browser name reference

Reference 74 has moved to http://www-archive.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/firefox-name-faq.html.

(Why is the page locked? I see no explicit mention on the talk page, but it sounds like it's been locked for years...)

208.91.114.4 (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Archive link added. It was locked a few months ago because of the sort of recurring vandalism that wouldn't get much talk page discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Stufful & Bewear from Pokémon Sun & Pokémon Moon (2016)

The latest two installments of Nintendo and Game Freak's Pokémon video game series feature two new collectible creatures: Stufful and its evolved form Bewear.[1] [2] The two are very obviously based on red pandas in color and design, with their red fur, black limbs, white ears, cuddly appearance, and raccoon-like tails. This is especially apparent for the quadrupedal Stufful. I think this is worth adding to "Cultural depictions" section of the main article. I would add it myself if the article was not partially protected. --101Animals (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Stufful". Pokémon. August 9, 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ "Bewear". Pokémon. July 13, 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Request: New image for species box

I recently took this photo of Jang in Duisburg, Germany. It clearly shows all the features of a Red Panda and it also shows him on a branch, rather than on the ground which is more typical for Red Pandas. The image is also clearer and sharper than the current photo. Mattis2412 (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Red panda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Red panda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_panda/Archive_2&oldid=1146722458"