Talk:Red panda

message: *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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2018 

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

text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 15:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2019 

message: Kindly add a weblink to the  Sorbus wardii 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbus Zakir09135 (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done NiciVampireHeart 12:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2019 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2020 

message: 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯 soooo many errors lema fix em 70.185.18.232 (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2020 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Evidence for two species of red panda 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: There are two species

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2020 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nocturnal/Linking Suggestions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cultural depictions 

message: 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:  . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Turn into a genus page and make two different species pages? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2021 

message: {{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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2021 

message: 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 . 2001:4455:1A9:E100:5023:99FB:2ED1:17B6 (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2021 

message: 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)
replies: text: Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sub/species 

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

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Citation for the number of red pandas left 

message: Do you guys think this 2 images here might be better to be on infobox?  and . 2001:4455:364:A800:E5E5:3906:820:3691 (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the second one. Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  'Firefox'? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This article completely misses the point about the Red Panda and its name 

message: I want to add into the article that the red panda can be considered to be the "only true and the original panda". 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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). 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.SolarDGrayson (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I got distracted. I have added a brief note in the etymology section: "", 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Only true and original panda 

message: : So far, you reverted my edit where I simply added that "Ponya" means "bamboo eater" or "bamboo footed". I made this edit 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @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" 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".</b> 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."  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". Which actually supports what I wrote. SolarDGrayson (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

text:  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". <Blockquote> 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). </blockquote>  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  please comment. BhagyaMani (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree. Leave it the way it is. LittleJerry (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

text:  <S>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. </S>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)

text: @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. 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. <Blockquote> 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). </blockquote>  What makes you think I haven't quoted an academic book from Glatson when I made that clear above?  SolarDGrayson (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

text: 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.  SolarDGrayson (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

text: 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" 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)

text: <B>Update</b>; 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). 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)
thread_title:  Ponya means bamboo eater or bamboo footed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Red panda knowledge for 9 year olds