Talk:Red panda/Popular culture

Firefox

This article is sorely missing Firefox-related information. The red panda is perhaps more notable than ever due to its association with the browser. Maybe someone has a better source for the name, I've linked the mozilla faq for now. Chaosmachine (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Most people thin the firefox logo is a fox, so I wouldn't say it's more notable than ever. Almighty Rajah (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The logo may be a regular fox, but it is indeed named after the firefox (see History of Mozilla Firefox). I've added a mention in the human culture section. --Wulf (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

To close this loop: The reference mentioned above was removed before I started editing. However, I just followed the link and read the article, and here is what it says: "The animal shown in the logo is a stylized fox, although "firefox" is considered to be a common name for the Red Panda. The panda, according to Hicks, "didn't really conjure up the right imagery", besides not being widely known." In fact, earlier in the article it states "The name, "Firefox", was chosen for its similarity to "Firebird" [the original name, which had trademarking issues], but also for its uniqueness in the computing industry." So Firefox the browser (besides the name itself), has nothing to do with the Red Panda. The name was an offshoot of "Firebird" and the logo is by statement of its designer a red fox. Note that I work in the computer industry, and almost nobody I talk to knows that Firefox is also one of the names for a real animal (until I tell them). Donlammers (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard the name firefox being referred to a red panda. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more specific -- "Firefox" is the translation of one of the Chinese names of Red panda. I first read this on a zoo plaque (which had a really nice picture showing why it might be called this). I have not heard its use in English except in this context (e.g., "did you know the Red Panda is called Firefox in Chinese?). There is a longer discussion of the chinese name up under one of the Naming sections on this page. My point above is that it is definitely NOT a Red Panda depicted on the Firefox browser logo. According to the article the designer of the logo seems to have been aware that Firefox = Red Panda in Chinese, but he specifically denies that the logo is a Red Panda.

Popular Culture

Please explain how adding this on piece of trivia improves or add anything to the understanding of the Red Panda. Wikipedia discourages trivia sections. A new name 2008 (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider it trivia, nor did I label it as such. Red pandas have not been featured in any other work of widely-seen or -read fiction of which I'm aware. Dustin Hoffman, who provided the voice of the red panda Master Shifu in Kung Fu Panda, specifically said he wanted his character to be a member of an endangered species (presumably to enhance public awareness of the animals' plight). Some other animals' Wiki articles (such as cheetahs, for example, last time I checked) already have popular culture references in a separate section. Why not red pandas? Please stop deleting my addition. Thank you! Elendil's Heir (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter what you label it the section still falls into the kind of trivial info that Wikipedia discourages. This is an animated film where the animals have been anthropomorphised. There is nothing in the film that adds to anyones understanding of real Red Pandas. Please remember that just because other articles may have something does not mean that all of them have to have it. So in this attempt to build a consensus I would oppose having this section in the article. Lets see how other editors feel. MarnetteD | Talk 16:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this piece of trivia adds to the understanding Red Pandas. I oppose the addition of this section at this time unless a valid arguement is put foraward as to how it adds to the understanding of Red Pandas. A new name 2008 (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I just read the trivia article pointed to above, and the information proposed here (basically a statement that red panda has reached into popular culture in the U.S. through a popular movie) is not what is being discouraged. What's being discouraged is creating a section full of unrelated (though possibly interesting) information about the subject. If someone can figure out how to work this into the narrative in a sensible manner (not just tack it into a section), I think the information would qualify for being added. Unfortunately, I keep reading the article and can't figure out where it would really fit.Donlammers (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the 'Popular culture' section of the article?

I noticed a long time ago that the Popular culture section of the article was removed. Why was this? I think it should be put pack as it was a good part of the article. Ross Rhodes (T C) ^Sign! 20:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture redux

On 2009-10-31 a "Popular culture" section appeared again. It was removed by SMC before I got around to it, but it's why I consolidated these notes. It read as follows: "a red panda named kitchi can be the main friend of mowgli in shonen the jungle book, masters shifu was a an anthromorphic red panda in kung fu panda one existed as an adpotable animal in zoo tycoon 1 and 2" This fails Wikipedia standards on several grounds.

• I don't believe that the fact that a Red Panda is in a zoo game (my son has the game, and I can attest that it is there) or in a movie is relevant to the Red Panda. It may be relevant to gaming (though I'm not sure how) or to the movies, but the animal certainly does not care and these facts do not increase our understanding of the animal.
• This "section" is a single run-on sentence that is a simple list of facts without any support or elaboration. It qualifies under the Wikipedia definition of "trivia", which is highly discouraged except in the initial stages of an article when you are just trying to figure out what will be included.
• I realize I'm not supposed to be negative, but it's really bad English.

The only item here that might be of interest is the Master Shifu reference. However, this was initially put in a similar section in 2008 and rejected by the group. That reference was much more coherent and relevant: "Master Shifu (voice by Dustin Hoffman) in the 2008 animated movie Kung Fu Panda is a red panda. In the movie's DVD extras, Hoffman said he insisted that his character be a member of an endangered species." Note that even this version does not state why this matters (what do Dustin Hoffman or Kung Fu have to do with Pandas except in the context of the movie?). The explanation above (which seems to have been only on the talk page), would potentially place this information in the "Conservation" section, though some additional reasoning and support would need to be added. It should, however, be discussed here before anything is done. Having seen the interview with Dustin Hoffman, I know that he does NOT state the reason that he wanted this -- only that he wanted to play an endangered animal. If you want to tie this to conservation, it needs to have better support than just the extras in the DVD. Donlammers (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

See below. My solution would be to broaden the section to Cultural depictions so it could incorporate traditional folklore (which is pop culture from 500 years ago anyway), or emblems or somesuch. A skinny bit with the hoffman bit would not look so good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I was actually stunned to notice that such a mention wasn't included. I discovered this page specifically because my kids were curious what kind of animal Shifu was, and wanted to see what a real one looked like. I tried amending this (because I thought it was an oversight), but it was quickly reverted. Personally, I think this is a mistake, as the film clearly can help drive interest in these endangered animals, but that's just my humble opinion. EJSawyer (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Pop culture is trivia, and not, generally, of interest on a biology page. The appropriate edit would be to put the info on what kind of animal Shifu is on the movie's article, linking to this one. there's nothing about that fact that is about the animal - it's about the character and the movie. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion UtherSRG, which happens to differ from mine. I do agree that alot of pop culture additions are unreferenced and shoddy, resulting in a list of unreferenced entries with no coherency. Cultural depictions are just ancient pop culture and I see no reason to draw an arbitrary line at, lets say, 1900, 1950 or whatever. Ultimately a Cultural depictions section which is referenced and cohesive will be a better ward than the absence of a section (which will prompt someone to add one) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, drawing a line is a very good idea.... If the cultural reference has survived for more than a certain amount of time, then the impact on the culture is certainly more significant that a reference that hasn't survived. This makes all one-shot modern references irrelevant and just a flash in the pan and not about the animal. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

We ain't a crystal ball UtherSRG, however. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

A very good point to make. We aren't a crystal ball. So we should wait until things actually become a cultural impact before we say they are a cultural impact. So what defines a cultural impact? Doesn't it require a certain amount of "test of time"? - UtherSRG (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with UtherSRG that the addition made by EJSawyer is in itself insufficient. We have been through this in the past (including during the GA process), and that has always been the consensus so far. HOWEVER, I also agree with Casliber that a "Cultural Depictions" section can be created with enough relevant information. I have been working on this on and off in my sandbox, but got stalled and then distracted by other things. You can see where I am with a proposed section at User:Donlammers/Sandbox#Cultural depictions (Red Panda). Although the Dustin Hoffman stuff is full of contradictions which I have not yet resolved in my narrative, I think there is basically a section worth of information, so I would be happy to clean this up a bit and post it, and then let everyone refine it. Donlammers (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It's good up until the point it starts talking about the movie.The points made about the confusion some reviewers had is good, but the rest about the movie is about the movie, not about the animal. And that's always the bottom line: is the reference really about the animal, or about the piece of culture it appears in. For the most part, most modern references are about the piece of culture it appears in, and is not relevant to the article about the animal. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Donlammers, I think that is a great sandbox-cultural segment you've done. Coherent and in-depth with some extended discussion of the hows and whys etc. I really like the bits about the movie - unlike UtherSRG, I do see it as germane to the article, as it how (un)aware Americans might be of the little critter. I agree you could probably lose the last two snippets at the end starting Written by Johnathan Aibel... etc. as that'd be on the movie page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to get in the way of a good fight or anything, but you two actually seem to be saying the same thing. I think UtherSRG clarifies the issue (at least for me) by "about the movie, not about the animal". This is a pretty good metric that I can work to in the future. So, I am going to publish the items from my sandbox after having gotten the citations straight and eliminated the last couple of snippets which, as Casliber points out, are about the movie and will be on the movie page. Donlammers (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)