Talk:Żubroń

the direct descendents of infertile animals?

"Males are infertile in first generation, but their direct descendants can breed normally."

this... doesn't look quite right. pauli 16:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

But it is.

1. Wisent bull and a cow have a kid
2. The kid is infertile and cannot have kids of his own the natural way
3. His sperm is taken by scien tists who inseminate a random cow of any of the species with it
4. The cow has in vitro children eventhough the bull could have no children on his own.

Halibutt 23:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That's confusing, why is it infertile if it's capable of artificial insemination? Granite26 20:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why was breeding discontinued? It'd be nice to have some info as to why...

• Info added Mieciu K (talk)

Is this right

"be more durable and less impregnable to disease"

sounds like you want to say less susceptable to disease.

Granite26 20:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Who brakes copiright

When poking aroun on internet find these pages which are same to ourone. But nowhere said, we have a text from wikipedia or here no citations of those pages. Lets compare:

• http://www.messybeast.com/genetics/hybrid-bovines.htm
• http://www.molyworld.net/aa/cross05a.htm
• etc.--Juan de Vojníkov 20:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Żubroń → Zubron – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC) This article was recently moved (without discussion) from the English spelling "Zubron", to the Polish spelling "Żubroń". This is the English Wikipedia, and the name of the animal in English is spelt without the diacritics. I propose moving it back as per WP:ENGLISH. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think that an 'English' spelling needs to be without diacritics; English tends to be quite respectful of them in loanwords and foreign names. Is 'zubron' in fact an English word at all? I can't find it in any dictionary I have. Is there an established usage of it in scholarly and academic texts? What does the OED say (I don't have access atm, or would check)? Because if it is, as it appears, a Polish word, then won't the 'Portuguese for Brazilian towns' rule apply, and the diacritics stay? Google scholar seems to throw up only one relevant result in English, this one; the spelling is as the current name of this article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd have thought that either it is a loan-word, in which case (as Kauffner says) English usage will not use the diacritics, or it is not an English word at all, in which case the article title surely ought to be in English, something like "Hybrid of European bison and cattle". As it does seem to be pretty well established as a word, I think the former must apply. As for the use in Waldökologie, Landschaftsforschung und Naturschutz, that's evidently a translation not written by a first-language English speaker, and anyway it's published in what seems to be primarily a German language journal: neither of these give the article's English usage much authority. (Excellent and interesting article though: I may have to buy some buffalo...). The first ten pages of general Google hits include many examples spelt without diacritics, but hardly any examples in English spelt in the Polish manner – and again these are not written by first-language English speakers (for example this one). Richard New Forest (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The "Portugese for Brazilian towns" surely only applies to words mainly used only in that language. If the animal was a mainly Polish thing mainly discussed only in Poland, then yes, it would apply. However, it is a hybrid of two European species which we do discuss in English (and in other languages). When we talk about it in English, we generally use an English transliteration of the foreign word, much as we do with "wisent", "aurochs", "Neanderthal", "Charolais" and so on. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support As far as published English-language usage goes, I found only this and this. But if idea it that this is a loanword, then the Slavic diacritics need to be dropped -- very few English-language publications use them. Kauffner (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well then, for balance, oppose. I don't think this particular case is a big deal. But the idea that English words of foreign origin, or foreign words occasionally used in English (which is what I mean by "loanwords"), should have their original diacritics systematically stripped off is an insidious misconception. English has thousands of words of foreign origin that include diacritics or accents in their everyday spelling; on the whole, at least on this side of the pond, they are treated with a reasonable degree of respect. OK, we have haček when it should be 'háček', nothing is perfect. For examples of the original Polish spelling of żubroń used in English-language publications, try some Rough Guides and the like on Google books. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What English-language publications use Slavic diacritics? Petty much just the travel guides, Columbia, and Britannica. "Loanword" implies wider usage than this, i.e. usage in publications that routinely strip off Slavic dialectics. Most newspapers follow AP style, which is to strip off all diacritics. I don't what you could possibly be reading that you don't know this already. But if you really think that I'm just making this stuff up, take a look at this article in the British science journal New Scientist. It gives the word as "Zubron", diacritics stripped off. Kauffner (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

See comment below: no-one is saying that diacritics "should" be stripped off loanwords: they just generally are, particularly (as in this case) where they are unnecessary for pronunciation and meaningless to English speakers. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - in terms of usage, it seems there are rather few reliable English-language sources using the term. Those that do vary. For instance, Lonely Planet has Żubroń while Frommer's has Zubron.

But I'm not sure where this idea that diacritics must be dropped for English common nouns originated. We have Pâté, Attaché, Entrée, Café, Château, Piñata, Jalapeño and Ragù. Why not have Żubroń as well? It's more accurate, it helps with pronunciation for those who have a basic familiarity with Polish phonetics, and as long as there isn't convincing evidence that English prefers Zubron (and, really, we have very little to work with), why not keep the diacritics? - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not that they "must" be dropped, just that they generally are, with very few exceptions (mostly very well-established French words). I come back to my earlier point: either this word has been absorbed into English, or it is still a foreign word, and in the latter case I struggle to see why we should be using it at all when we can avoid it altogether with an English phrase. If we use it, we use it because it's English, and then it would not need the diacritics; if it is not English, we don't need it. However, many sources do use it as an English word (without the diacritics), and no sources of English-speaking origin use the diacritics do. Incidentally, have a look at List of English words of Polish origin: not a diacritic amongst them. Richard New Forest (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Sources seem roughly split on using Żubroń or Zubron, so WP:UE comes into play. Absconded Northerner (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course UE applies here, as it does throughout the encyclopaedia, that is unquestioned. The question is, which bit? Are we going to treat it like Nuremberg, like Søren Kierkegaard, or 'follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on)'? For the rare name of this rare animal it probably doesn't much matter; usage seems very equally split, so the third option may be the most viable. It is the wider context that is important: WP:UE neither says nor implies in any way that 'use English' means 'do not use diacritics'; and neither does WP:DIACRITICS. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - ultimately it is the introduction of a pointless inaccuracy. The only reason diacritics were ever dropped in the old days was to save money during typesetting, and no such costs are imposed here. Xanthoxyl ^< 05:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Newspaper copy editors have go through a lot of copy quite quickly and deal with names from all different countries. They can't be expected to be experts on the diacritics of every language, so the industry decided long ago to strip all diacritics out. Readers become familiar with a name or loanword through newspaper writing, so the newspaper spelling becomes conventional. We should report conventional English-language spelling to our readers and not mislead them into thinking that conventional spelling is something other than what it actually is. Kauffner (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

People know that diacritics get dropped in lowbrow texts, we don't have to preemptively make it inaccurate to avoid "misleading" them... Xanthoxyl ^< 19:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose looking at the above comments, yes, sources seem split between with or without diacritics, and a surprising number/sort of sources use the diacritics. The diacritics are more accurate and reflect usage in other languages, for a name used more in other languages, so I'd read this to say "Żubroń" should be used. —innotata 18:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. It doesn't look like "Zubron" is an official English word meaning this animal, just the Polish name rendered without diacritics. Therefore this is not a case like calling Suomi Finland or Deutschland Germany. If the diacritics are that difficult for people to type, then redirects are what is needed. JIP | Talk 16:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. per JIP. It's not even a proper English word. Unique animal that does not seem to have much existence outside of Polish sources. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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